October 20, 2017
Court News Latest News | Poll Questions | Haunted Maine | Bangor City Council | Orion Krause

Comments for: Court declares Calif. gay marriage ban unconstitutional

Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

The Bangor Daily News and the Bangor Publishing Co. encourage comments about stories, but you must follow our terms of service.

  1. Keep it civil and stay on topic
  2. No vulgarity, racial slurs, name-calling or personal attacks.
  3. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.
The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. Here are some guidelines (see more):

  • Anonymous

    oh my god, this is just getting ridiculous.  

    • Anonymous

      I agree, the opponents of gay marriage should stop this ridiculous fight and accept that extending civil marriage equality is the right thing to do.

      • Anonymous

        If the real issue concerning “gay marriage” was equality, I would certainly agree with you. The real issue however has nothing to do with equality since SS couples cannot procreate, the ability to procreate being the reason for state endorsement of OS relationships. If SS couples could procreate then I’d say you would have a valid point of contention.

        • Anonymous

          Irrelevant. Read the opinion, they address the issue of procreation. Unless you will ban those who can’t or won’t procreate from marriage, you can’t ban gays alone and cite procreation as a reason.

          • Anonymous

            Look, SS relationships are unnatural, that is, they are not complimentary by nature mentally, emotionally, and physically. Besides, SSA is a disorder arising from abuse or psychological maladjustments.

          • OldWench

            A phobia (such as homophobia) is a mental illness that needs urgent treatment.

          • Anonymous

            Nope.

          • Anonymous

            All of which is irrelevant.

            And where will I find a medical reference that will back up you “SSA is a disorder arising from abuse or psychological maladjustments” claim?

          • Anonymous

            Sadly you will find several references to these claims because they a) use discredited or outdated information or b) they disagree with the majority of medical professionals or c) they so not believe psychology is a real science.
            I highly doubt whawell will cite evidence from current reputable psychologists or medical professionals. 
            Just as whawell does not cite specific evidence that state endorsed OS marriage (Civil Marriage) is about the POTENTIAL/POSSIBILITY to procreate.

          • Anonymous

            where do you get this stuff, if that were the case, more people, would homosexual. Unnatural yes it is, just as it is unnatural for me to be left handed, and more unnatural that I married a left handed man. It’s also unnatural that I was born with 3 kidneys. There are a lot of unnatural things in this world, it doesn’t make them wrong, just out of the norm.

          • Anonymous

            Disregarding the fact that literally every aspect of your comment is false, it’s all still irrelevant. 

          • Anonymous

            Not true, SS couples can be found all over nature between many mammels. 

          • Anonymous

            LOL!

            Civil marriage is itself unnatural! What is your point??

        • Anonymous

          Same sex couples, procreate all the time using, surrogates, sperm banks, and other such things; you have never, HAD to be married to procreate. Also there is no law stating that married people must procreate, if there was, that also would be unconstitutional, so your point is moot.

          • Anonymous

            SS couples do not procreate under any circumstances. The circumstances you listed require members of the opposite sex. Your right, there is no law requiring married couples to procreate. This does not change the fact OS couples can procreate.

          • OldWench

            Not all opposite sex couples are able to conceive.

          • Anonymous

            So?

          • Anonymous

            You can stop with “you’re right”.

          • Anonymous

            But don’t all of your examples such as surrogates require the involvement of another party?

        • Anonymous

          equality is the only issue.  if procreation was the issue, then post menopausal women would not be allowed to marry.

          your explanation is a fail.

          • Anonymous

            You have a point, but still, if it were not for the possibility of procreation there would be no point in state endorsed relationships. 

          • OldWench

            Wrong…the state doesn’t give a flying fart about procreation.  In fact, the state doesn’t care if same sex couples get married.  Churches care because they are prone to pushing their beliefs down the throats of others and violating God’s word by trying to judge others when it’s not their place to do so.  Every person who judges God’s children will burn in hell.

          • Anonymous

            I disagree with you. The state does care about what happens to children. In fact, custody issues in divorce cases are never, never legally settled on the basis of what is in the best interest of the parents. That basis is considered irrelevant. What is relevant in all cases is what lies in the ultimate best interests of children.

          • Anonymous

             Try reading the post again whawell. Here let me break it down for you.

            First Point – “Wrong…the state doesn’t give a flying fart about procreation.”
            Fact – No where on the marriage license application will you find any question about “procreation”.

            Second point – “In fact, the state doesn’t care if same sex couples get married.”
            Fact – The certainly don’t care about opposite sex couples procreating and living separate lives.

            Both of those points about the state and procreation are accurate. Maybe you forgot but you did bring in “procreation” into the discussion.

            Now you shift the argument to divorce and the states roll. Interesting but hardly on topic.

          • Anonymous

            You are making a very good case here why same sex parents in Maine need civil marriage protections, so their children can benefit from a legal divorce situation vs. their parents just going their separate ways. 

            Thank you.

          • Anonymous

            Beep!  False.

          • Anonymous

            “Procreation” is the reason for state endorsement of marriage?

            If that is the case why doesn’t the state stop endorsing infertile couples?

            Why doesn’t the state refuse to endorse a marriage where a woman has passed the age of menopause?

            Why doesn’t the state refuse to endorse a couple that does not wish to have children?

            But better yet, where on the marriage license application does it ask the applicants under pains of perjury to state that they intend to procreate?

          • Anonymous

            I disagree.  There is mutual property, emotional bonds, commitment, investment, retirement, healthcare.

            Marriage is a contract that binds two people.  Two people who seek to express themselves through commitment.  It makes our nation stronger because it makes communities stronger.

            I know you mean well.  I know you are faith based person.  I respect your opinion; but I applaud the Courts today for not allowing you to (well, discriminate against other people) based upon your views.

            Peace, dear whawell.

          • Anonymous

            It’s interesting that you should say that marriage binds two people. If by that you mean any two adults regardless of gender, then why not three or more adults regardless of gender? Once we accept the rationale that marriage (that is, state endorsed unions) is only about encouraging stable relationships, then that endorsement must be extended to all sorts of relationships, including polygamous ones. Therefore, if SS marriage is allowed, it is only a question of time before the courts impose state sanctioning of polygamous relationships. I doubt any of this is in the best interest of future generations and of society in the long run.

            Thank you for the closing compliment. I think you too mean well. Certainly you do raise some good objections in an issue that is more complex than most people can gasp. Fortunately we can and do disagree without being disagreeable with each other most of the time – which is a good thing. Thank you for your amiable disposition.

          • Anonymous

            Then fight to legalize polygamy if that’s what you want.

            Me? I’m fighting for civil marriage rights, because I need to protect the life I have built with my partner over the decades.

          • Anonymous

            Just read your comment. Please tell me how marriage will protect the life you have built with your partner over the decades.

          • http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pages/protections-and-responsibilities-of-marriage

            Several protections listed and links to a thousand other protections.

          • Anonymous

            the same way it protects your family.

          • Anonymous

            I’m curious. Would you be more specific as to how SSM will protect your family. I’ve never made that claim for my own family.

          • Anonymous

            Marriage protects your family via the contract of shared property between you and your spouse.

            Regardless of gender.

          • Anonymous

            You don’t need to get married to draw up a contract to share property. This can be done through an attorney, or even online.

          • Anonymous

            That’s a good argument for civil unions, but that is like blacks in the back of the bus and whites in the front of the bus.  Both seats take you to the same destination, but we see now why that was inherently unjust.

          • Anonymous

            This argument will not go anywhere obviously. I’ll say this much: Just examine your life as a young girl. You might discover the reason why you have SSA. Honestly I can’t help you because I don’t know enough about you to help you to discover the reason or reasons thereof. Although this may not be true in your case, past bad experiences with the opposite sex might be one of the reasons. 

          • Anonymous

            yeah, we’re not going to change each others minds, that I am sure of.  

            I think there is as much reason why I am heterosexual as there is reason why i have blue eyes.  

            Agree to disagree.  Have a nice evening.

          • Anonymous

            Marriage really has nothing to do with mistreating others as you have just suggested. It’s really about promoting a condition where as many children as possible are raised with a mom and a dad (preferably their natural ones) in the committed relationship of love. I have no problem understanding this concept but I can understand why some SS couples have trouble accepting this on account of their focus on themselves and their relationships. As I stated over and over, if marriage was simply about relationships between any two people, there would be no need for the state to sanction relationships.

          • Anonymous

            That’s exactly the point:  people who support marriage equality believe that discrimination is mistreatment.

          • Anonymous

            If one dies with0ut a will.

          • Anonymous

            Hospital visitation rights, property inheritance rights, social security benefit rights, etc etc etc.

            There are thousands of legal benefits and privileges contingent on marital status, and all can be had for the simple price of a civil marriage license.

            Some of those benefits are unavailable any other way, while others require the assemblage of legal documents which you must carry around at all times in case of emergency. Hardly a situation that stands up to the 14th Amendment equal protection clause, as has been found by numerous courts who have looked into the issue.

            Seriously, read the court opinions, I have given you links in the past to educate yourself. But you aren’t interested in learning, only trolling.

          • Anonymous

            You mean like in Massachusetts right….oh yeah it hasn’t happened there has it.

          • Anonymous

            If Men and women can get married why not A man and to women? Your argument about polygamous marriages is a fail. You have yet to win. 

          • Anonymous

            I think the ‘slippery slope’ argument is not Constitutionally valid because no one is discriminating against polygamy if all polygamy is outlawed.

            Current marriage laws do discriminate, and are therefore being challenged. 

          • Anonymous

            A clarification is in order here: Polygamy is the real sense is the practice or custom of having more than one wife or husband at the same time. Yes, polygamy is outlawed, but group sex partnership is not, just like SS partnerships involving two people are not. If the definition of marriage is changed to include SS couples then by extension marriage of group sex partners should be introduced. Yes, current marriage laws do discriminate against all partnerships other than couples of the opposite sex.

          • Anonymous

            How many wives did the folks in the old testament have?  Multiple.  

            Huh. Maybe we should consider the Bible an historical text, and an awesome poem with tremendous insights on how to live, but not interpret is so literally.  

            I’m not giving weight to the SSM opens the door to polygamy argument, since all polygamy is outlawed.

          • Anonymous

            Polygamy is not permittted just like SSM is not in most places. But group sex partnerships are not outlawed. What I maintain is that once the rationale for SSM is allowed, then the door is open for marriage of group sex partners, ex: one wife and two husbands, two husband and three wives, or any combination of wives and husbands.

          • Anonymous

            I understand.  But don’t agree.  But that’s okay.  take care whawell.

          • Anonymous

            The bible does not endorse marriage to more than one wife. That was a Jewish custom that God forbade. In the Old Testament God’s public revelation was an ongoing process that ended in apostolic times.

          • Anonymous

            Please tell that to the folks that cite Leviticus as their basis for homosexuality as sin.

          • Anonymous

            As I stated, revelation was an ongoing process.

        • Tedlick Badkey

          Procreation still? It’s not even part of the laws of marriage… you’re funny. It’s fun to watch you lose.

           Did you ever come up with a rational argument that will stand in court? Or have you accepted your loss?

          This from Justice Scalia:

          “If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is “no legitimate state interest” for purposes of proscribing that conduct…what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising “the liberty protected by the Constitution”? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry.”

          See genius? Even he knows your procreation argument is foolish.

          • Anonymous

            No doubt, as Scalia implies, homosexuality is a moral disapprobation. Just that alone is sufficient to deny the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples, which is not morally approbate. In fact, OS couples who can’t procreate are allowed to be married because it is morally approved, among other reasons.

          • Anonymous

            no,no, no.  Homosexuals are God’s children, whawell, just like you and me.

            Judgement is not up to man, and not for here on Earth.  I believe it is Old Testament text that speaks to ‘hospitality’ the notion of honoring all people since each one of us is a child of God.

          • Anonymous

            I totally agree with you that we are all God’s children even though some have apparently gone awry. God approves of some behaviors but  not all of them.

          • Anonymous

            The fundamental difference in our outlooks is that you think homosexuality is a choice.  I say it is biological, and therefore of God’s creation.

          • Anonymous

            Homosexual is a practice. Just like any practice it is always a choice. SS attraction (SSA) on the other hand is not a choice in most cases. After decades and millions of dollars spent researching, no genetic link has been found for SSA. The attempt to find a link has all but been abandoned. There is however mountains of anecdotal evidence pointing to childhood experiences as the origin of SSA.

          • Anonymous

            1. The human genome is mapped, but only partially identified, with billions of gene combinations possible it will be years before the project is complete.
            2. I assume you are heterosexual, was that a choice?  (rhetorical question, sorry)

        • Anonymous

          Procreation as a reason for marriage had to do patriarchical sociaties and the laws of ownership. All of which is contrary to republican government and the Constitution.

          • Anonymous

            It’s more specifically the POSSIBILITY of procreation that is the reason for marriage, since among other reasons the state cannot dictate how many children a couple must have or promise to have.

          • Anonymous

            The court and all previous courts have ruled that the reality of procreation is not grounds for discrimination in marriage. The POSSIBILITY is an even weaker justification. Will not stand up anywhere.

          • Anonymous

             I’m not certain whether you’ve picked up your strange theological grounding from the Vatican or Lets Make A Deal.

          • Anonymous

            Please cite medical evidence that shows procreation in post-menopausal women OR in medically sterile individuals is a Possibility. 

        • your reasoning appears flawed here. I can procreate just fine, thank you.  I choose not to do so.  Many couples need surrogates, or choose to adopt rather than have a natural child birth. All marriages are between two people, not two people and the children they might have.  My cousin and her husband adopted a baby and some of my married friends chose not to have children at all.  The validity of their unions are never in question. 

          Gay people adopt the unwanted children of straight people all the time.  If a gay couple had the right to marry, the protections afforded families would strengthen their family unit, not destroy it, as some commentators would have us believe.

          thanks for reading.

          • Anonymous

            Children do best in a family with a mom and dad in a committed relationship of love. The other family structures you brought up in your comment are artificial constructs, not natural ones. In cases where for some reason or another children are deprived of the natural parents, children should be adopted by a family with the same structure, that is, a mom and a dad in a committed relationship of love. State endorsement of unnatural SS unions can only encourage the formation of unstable families through artificial means, such as, artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, and surrogacy, all of which in this case deprive children of at least one of their natural offspring. I am certainly not an advocate of any of these artificial means of reproduction where babies are essentially brought into being for the benefit of adults. Likewise I am not in favor of adoption by homosexuals.

          • Anonymous

            “Children do best in a family with a mom and dad in a committed
            relationship of love.”

            I would agree that all things being equal that would be best. But it is not realistic when you have a divorce rate of 53.7% or when 34% of  children live in single parent families.
            ~~~~~
            “The other family structures you brought up in your comment are artificial constructs, not natural ones.”

            whawell it still takes sperm and an egg. Are you saying that an infertile couple that decide to use “other means” for conception either should not be allowed to have children or should just understand they were not “destined” to have children”
            ~~~~~
            “In cases where for some reason or another children are deprived of the natural parents, children should be adopted by a family with the same structure, that is, a mom and a dad in a committed relationship of love.”

            The numbers vary widely but there are approximately 550,000 children in foster care. Of those in foster care 127,000 are available for adoption. Are there 127,000 “same structure” families willing to adopt them? And these figures do not count foreign adoptions or special needs children in need of a home.
            ~~~~~
            “State endorsement of unnatural SS unions can only encourage the formation of families through artificial means, such as, artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, and surrogacy, all of which in this case deprive children of at least one of their natural offspring.”

            Hmmm, the American Academy of Pediatrics pubished a study a year or so ago that showed that children being raised in “unnatural SS unions” to be very well adjusted, loved, not subject to the same level of abuse found in “natural unions”.
            ~~~~~
            “I am certainly not an advocate of any of these artificial means of reproduction where babies are essentially brought into being for the benefit of adults.”

            So if an opposite sex married couple can not conceive “naturally” you would not advocate for them to have “artificial means of reproduction”. That is certainly mighty nice of you.
            ~~~~~
            “Likewise I am not in favor of adoption by homosexuals.”

            Yes God forbid a child be given to a couple that is willing to raise them, cloth them, provide for all their needs. It is far better to leave them in a foster home (or mover them from home to home) and have the state provide for there needs than give them to the “evil” homosexuals.

          • Anonymous

            It sounds like you are arguing against civil marriage benefits of any kind, even to heterosexual couples.

            Or you want to forbid adoption, step-children, and any other type of family other than the ozzie-and-harriett perfection in your mind.

        • OldWench

          Same sex couples have children and those children are entitled to the protections granted by civil marriage.  These couples adopt and use surrogates.  There are many legally married couples who choose not to have children, who get married when they are no longer able to have children and who are unable to conceive.  Your argument is not based on fact.  Either civil marriage with the benefits for all or civil marriage benefits for none.  You can’t have it both ways.

          • Anonymous

            SS couple do not procreate and should not be allowed to adopt. The use of surrogates is really a deplorable act as it separate children from their natural offspring, that is, their mom or dad, or both. Couples who marry without the intention of having children often end up having a child. Their marriage helps to ensure the child is raised in a loving, stable relationship. Remember, the primary purpose of marriage is to ensure that as many children as possible are raised in best environment possible. If marriage was merely about relationships, then there would be no need for the state to get involved.

          • Anonymous

            “Remember, the primary purpose of marriage is to ensure that as many
            children as possible are raised in best environment possible.”

            Really? Says who? Can you document this opinion as fact?

          • Anonymous

            whawell:
            Women who are post-menopausal are UNABLE to procreate ……  and the government endorses their “privilege” to enter into marriage.  What you are saying is that the state has no need to get involved when a post-menopausal female marries …. because in that case it is “merely” about a relationship.

        • Anonymous

          Flogging the same dead horse.  Don’t you get tired of it?  We sure do.

          • Anonymous

            Interesting that you should come up with that comment! It thought it applied to you however.

          • Anonymous

            Translation: I know you are but what am I?

        • Anonymous

          Procreation is not nor has it ever been a requirement for those entering into marriage.  If couples only married so they could procreate then there would be age limitations (I.E. post-menopausal women can not procreate) and some requirement stating they were able to procreate.  Other than 1st cousins receiving a certificate of genetic counseling, is there any reference to reproduction in the Civil Marriage statutes in the state of Maine?  If you can cite one please do.

          • Anonymous

            Your right, procreation has never been a requirement. State endorsement of OS unions is intended to ensure that as many children as possible are raised in stable loving relationship of their natural parents. Many couples who marry without any intention of procreating end up having children or adopting children without parents.

          • Anonymous

            whawell: the state endorses marriage for OS couples regardless of their intent, ability or desire to have, adopt or raise children and treats them legally the same whether they do or not, ie next-of-kin, inheritance, taxes, after death decisions, pensions etc.
            This is the talking point you use most often and still seem to be unaware that there are SS couples who are raising children, biological or adopted that are not treated under law in the same manner as OS couples and neither are their children.

        • Anonymous

          Here we go with the procreation argument, which has been thoroughly disassembled and proven invalid.

          – we don’t require marriages to produce children at any point
          – we don’t forbid the infertile to marry
          – we don’t forbid divorce for married parents

          Please, actually read the legal rulings from Iowa and California and absorb their findings of fact before you have another opportunity to spout baseless and faulty arguments.

      • Anonymous

        The opponents of gay marriage didn’t start this ridiculous fight. As I understand it you people started it when you appealed the decision of the people who voted for Proposition 8. So it sounds like you can’t accept the voice of the people unless you agree with it.

        • Anonymous

          In the State of Maine in the year 2009 the legislature passed a law that was signed by the then governor extending Civil marriage to same-sex couples; why was the repeal of said law placed on ballot?? ……… because Opponents of gay marriage used the referendum process to put it there to deny the rights.  In California, the legislature passed a law that extended Civil marriage to same-sex couples, Opponents to gay marriage brought forth Prop. 8 to strip that right away those rights given.
          Please read the decision by the 9th circuit … it is available online.

        • Anonymous

          Seriously? You do realize that Proposition 8 was brought forth specifically because California dared to treat all its citizens equally in regards to civil marriage?

          It sounds like you can’t accept what our Constitution requires of us unless you agree with it.

    • Tedlick Badkey

       Did you ever come up with a rational argument that will stand in court?

      Or have you accepted your loss?

      • Anonymous

        Ted i told you numerous times, you guys deserve rights.  I have said it over and over.  Congratulations and may maine be next

        • Tedlick Badkey

          Sorry!!! Thanks!

          • Anonymous

            No problem, hope your having a blessed day with your partner

  • Guest

    What else would you expect from wacko central San Francisco?
    The 9th circuit court of appeals is the most overturned court in the country.
    Place is full of wackjobs and moonbats.

    • Anonymous

      The 9th Circuit represents far more than “wacko central San Francisco”. It is the largest of the federal courts of appeals, and represents several western US states. Around 20% of the US Population is served by the 9th circuit.

      You should read the ruling and the clear case it makes for same sex marriage, there is nothing ‘wacko’ about abiding by our Constitution.

      • Anonymous

        Don’t go tootin your horn to loud, Judges in the circuit’s nine Western states are more liberal than the high court justices, who reversed or vacated 19 of the 26 decisions they examined for the last term. Sounds like a bunch of those Judges can’t understand OUR Constitution.

        • Anonymous

          where in the constitution does, it state that only, men and women can get married?  this is unconstitutional because, there is no just reasoning, for gay not to marry!

          • Anonymous

            Don’t go throwing your moral opinion in what I said. I’m talking about the same court that believes there is nothing wrong in burning our nation’s flag for what ever reason you want . I have no faith in or compulsion to abide by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and I don’t give a cr@p how big they are or how many “subjects” they rule over.

          • Anonymous

            Burning the flag, has nothing to do with this, that’s freedom of speech, but you know that don’t  you. I am a moral person, I’m also not homosexual, there are people I love dearly, who happen to be homosexual. This is about civil rights, marriage, is a civil right, just because, you don’t like it don’t keep it from being so. I don’t like flag burning either, just, as I don’t like, patriotism being judged on whether you wear a flag pin on your lapel.

          • Anonymous

            Of course burning the flag has nothing to do with it, I was just using that as an EXAMPLE of how this court’s past decisions have been reversed. I also expect and rightly so that this decision made by this po;iticaly driven court will be reversed or at least vacated. Thats my opinion and if you don’t like it well that’s too bad.

          • Anonymous

            Psst PWandLD I need to tell you something.

            While U.S. Code prohibits flag burning, the SCOTUS has ruled several times that it is protected free speech.

          • Anonymous

            Isn’t that something, People have died for that flag just so some can irreverently burn it and use the Constitution to do it. 

          • Anonymous

            That’s right…Freedom of Speech

          • Anonymous

            Q:  what’s worse than burning the flag?

            A:  passing a law limiting free speech.

          • Joseph Willingham

            Yes.  That’s exactly why they fought.  Our country isn’t like others where unpopular political expressions are illegal.  Do you want it to be?

          • Anonymous

            No one dies for a flag unless they are a blithering moron.

            Those who served our country and paid the ultimate sacrifice died for our ideals, not our flag.

          • Anonymous

            OK PWandLD

            1) The 9th Circuit used the U.S. Constitution as the basis for their decision.

            2) While I dearly love our flag and what it represents, to burn it is protected free speech. It personally pained me to watch the news last night when they showed the flag being burned in Portland.

            3) While you may “have no faith in or compulsion to abide by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals” (the decision will be stayed until appeal to the full Circuit or the SCOTUS) you will not have a choice when the SCOTUS issues its decision (or refuses to hear the case which will affirm the lower courts ruling).

          • Anonymous

            Thank you for the civil reply. But believe it or not I’m not trying to get out of a gay marriage. (pun intended) as for this Gay marriage thing is concerned I could care less what gays want to do, just don’t preach to me how right their opinions are.

          • Anonymous

            that’s ok, because no one is asking you to marry a gay person.  so, whether you ‘abide’ by the decision or not…doesn’t matter.

          • Anonymous

            I agree it doesn’t matter just like your comment

          • Anonymous

            /very intelligent.

        • Anonymous

          I completely agree. Alito, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas have been making law without any Constitutional foundation for their entire terms. The Country would be much better served when the Supreme Court has responsibile judges who do not re-write the Constitution to fit their personal and often religious beliefs. What’s wacko is the Supreme Court’s irrational unlawful decisions. Just one major example Citizens United and the crackpot idea that corporations are people. Chief Justice Marshall several centuries ago settled that issue by deciding that corporations are accumulations of contracts. He was right. The current court is wacko.

          • Anonymous

            You may be right or wrong but I was specifically talking about the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals not the U.S. Supreme Court. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is famous for defying the peoples as well as State legislation as they aqrre doing here. Even though the court is supposedly “Non-Partisan” they reek of Liberal Democrats and make decisions accordingly.

          • Anonymous

            The Constitution and US Supreme Court case law is nothing near what you’re blabbing about. Read the opinion for yourself before you start parroting tired and erroneous talking points.

          • Anonymous

            Why can’t you guys make a comment and keep it civil!
            If you read my comment you would notice I said I was NOT talking about the Supreme Court and I never mentioned the Constitution.
            As far as my “Talking points” are concerned, I call them my opinion and whether you you agree with them or not I still have a right to them.  

          • Anonymous

            I am being civil, don’t try and derail the discussion. Further, if you don’t realize that a federal court utilizes the Constitution and Supreme Court case law as basis for its decisions, why are you even here discussing the matter? This isn’t a story about same-sex marriage in general, it’s about a court case in the federal court system. If you would read the opinion and if you would understand how our judicial system works, you’d realize that the appeals court did nothing radical today. They literally just strung together various concepts of settled law and applied them to the issue at hand. 

            Also, it’s pretty obvious that you are in fact simply parroting talking points. I sincerely doubt these are your opinions as you’re trying to talk about the history and reputation of the 9th circuit yet you have no understanding about how a federal appeals court functions and renders its opinions. 

          • Anonymous

            were you keeping it civil when you replied to me, ‘my comment doesn’t matter’.

            now you’re coming off like a hypocrite whiner.

            great combination you got going there.

          • Anonymous

            You commented “that’s ok, because no one is asking you to marry a gay person. so, whether you ‘abide’ by the decision or not…doesn’t matter”, you call that civil?
             Sorry if my opinion seems uncivil because I disagree. I should have used a better adjective such as  irrelevant or dilusional maybe.

          • Anonymous

            It is OK to have your own opinion.
            It is not OK to force on others.

            That’s the issue regarding marriage equality.

            As far as adjectives for you PWandLD, hysterical and hyperbolic come to mind.  

            Take care.

        • Anonymous

          Sounds to me more like you can’t understand it. If your church wants to deny marriage to gay couples based on their magic book, have a lovely time. You have no business telling others they can’t marry under the law just because your bronze age fairy tales don’t support it. Just because the catholic church doesn’t allow divorce, that will not prevent someone who was married in a catholic church from getting a legal divorce. Gay marriage is no different. You should learn to keep you nose out of other people’s bedrooms.

          • Anonymous

            Sounds to me like you should learn to read. Where did I say Catholic church, cant marry, deny marriage, bronze fairytale. I never indicated one way or another my feelings on gays , marriage, or homosexuals but I will if you want me to. You make yourself look very small minded and your opinions invalid by attacking me for something I didn’t do or say. So go peddle your irrelevant venom somewhere else.

          • Anonymous

            Magic book, Bronze age fairy tales, Gay marriage is no different. You should should keep your bedroom out of other peoples noses. This entire issue sounds more and more like a golden opportunity to advance a cause an less and less about being able to maintain a private relationship.

          • Anonymous

            I am not trying to make anyone conform their life to what I do in my bedroom. I am trying to get people like you to stop trying to force everyone else to conform to your antiquated values. If you want to live in a theocracy, move to Iran.

          • Joseph Willingham

            All I know is that this affects MY life directly.  My boyfriend and I have friends and family who love us and want to see us marry.  Those people who don’t know us, they don’t know of our plans. If the people of Maine who don’t want same-sex marriage, then don’t get one and don’t associate with people who do.

            Other than that, personal prejudices that some people have should have no effect on how I want to legally live my life.  (Note, I am not talking about snorting coke or robbing banks, but living a life just like others legally do).

        • Anonymous

          Please point out where you actually disagree with the findings of the court on THIS decision, and your legal justification for why their decision should be thrown out.

    • Anonymous

      Because it’s the largest circuit — they hear the most cases. What you’ve said is basically like saying, tall players in the NBA get the most fouls.

    • Anonymous

      You may disagree with the decision but within the decision this appears: “The People may not employ the initiative power to single out a disfavored group for unequal treatment and strip them, without a
      legitimate justification, of a right as important as the right to marry.”
      In 2009 the state extended Civil marriage to same-sex couples and “the people” employed the initiative power (referendum process) to do the same thing. 

    • Tedlick Badkey

       Better wackjobs and moonbats than wingnuts and fundies.

  • Anonymous

    Maine has a wonderful opportunity this November to become the first state to extend civil marriage to same sex couples via popular vote. We have a rich history of equality in this state, extending interracial marriage and woman’s suffrage ahead of the nation in decades past.

    It is obvious that same sex marriage is coming nationwide within the next few years, as courts have consistently been ruling that there is no legitimate reason to discriminate against us for civil marriage rights. This ruling reinforces that.

    But wouldn’t it be wonderful to beat the US Supreme Court to the punch, and offer civil marriage to same sex couples this year?

    • Anonymous

      Entrenched ignorance is hard to defeat, but slowly the cruelty of denying a basic right to ordinary citizens is being replaced by respect for equality. 

      • Anonymous

        i think ignorance and disrespect will be around for quite a while.  not much the SCOTUS can do about that.

        i saw this bumper sticker today.  it seems appropriate to share.  simply:

        Love > Fear

      • Anonymous

        There will always be people who do not agree with homosexuality, but what those people need to realize is that although they may not agree with the lifestyle, they have no right to tell others who they can or cannot marry. That is really what the issue is.

        • Anonymous

          Ok, try and hear this out with going on the defense or being offended.  Asking for equal rights is one thing, asking for marriage is another. Rights are determined and founded by the state, marriage by the Church. Homosexuality has existed ever since humans walked the earth.  But that doesnt make homosexuality biologically correct. Our bodies did not survive through thousands of years of evolution from homosexuality. It has always been a personal choice.  I support personal choice if it does not harm others. I recognize the founding of the word marriage milennia ago and has never applied to homosexuality. Your right the state shouldnt have the right to tell people who can and cannot marry, but a church can. Where the term marriage was founded.  Do you seee the need to separate State and Church on this one? Or am I just another ignorant one trying to control the lives of others?

          • Anonymous

            There is already separation of church and state on this issue. I can have a same sex marriage ceremony in a church with my partner, the government has no authority to stop that.

            Civil marriage rights are licensed by the government, though, and that is where the unconstitutional discrimination occurs.

            Asking for marriage is asking for equal rights, as I see it. I am not offended by your disagreement on the use of the term marriage, but I am absolutely petitioning the government we share to treat us all equally, giving us equal access to the benefits of civil marriage.

          • Anonymous

            Well, I never said you were ignorant, nor did I say that about anybody else for that matter. I am certainly not offended, nor will I be defensive. You presented your argument in a polite, respectful, and reasonable manner and it should be expected that I extend the same courtesy.

            A church does have a right to not wed two people of the same sex; however, I am not talking about the ceremonial aspects of marriage. I am talking about the legal aspects of marriage. Those aspects of marriage, can not and should not be defined by religion. Not everybodies marriage ceremony takes place in a church, or in the presence of a minister or god, as not everybody is religious, thus they personally define marriage differently than you might.

            Maybe homosexuality isn’t biologically correct, but neither is six toes on one foot, or being born with two sets of genitals, etc. Whether a person is “born gay” or makes that decision does not matter, that is their choice, as you acknowledged, and they should be entitled to the same legal benefits that heterosexual couples have.

            But you are right, if your church does not want to accept or acknowledge a homosexual couple/marriage then they have every right to, but that right does not extend beyond the church and especially to the government, and government laws. And at the very least, if it makes people feel better, that should leave the definition of marriage alone and create a legal-unionship that gives the same rights to homosexual couples, but even doing that is really no different than redefining marriage.

  • Anonymous

    duh

  • Anonymous

    Before the talking point parrots come out here screeching about activist judges, it should be noted that this court didn’t come up with anything new. They didn’t make new rules or new tests. Their entire decision is based on already established US Supreme Court case law.

    What was said — You need legitimate government interest to establish laws (Moreno). Basic disapproval doesn’t constitute a government interest (Romer). Moral disapproval isn’t enough either as the majority may not impose its views on minorities, especially in order to harm (Lawrence).

    • Anonymous

      Great comment

    • Anonymous

      So much for “Majority Rules” hey?

      • Anonymous

        You don’t get to strip others of their rights because you don’t like them. That is not an American principle. 

      • Anonymous

        Said it before and I’ll say it again — if we went by majority rule on a state-level basis, we’d still have slavery in Mississippi.

  • Anonymous

    How can it be special rights

  • Anonymous

    You’ve done an excellent job of boiling down to one short sentence that which is in the heart of every anti-gay bigot who fights marriage equality.  Of course, you couldn’t be more wrong.  But at least you’re concise.

  • Perverts? Like those perverts that adopt children, raise them sonudly to become our brothers and sisters. Those perverts that have and do teach, judge, take out your garbage, preach , write books, etc? If you want to talk about perverts, look into yourself. Have you ever masturbated, looked at ANY type of nudity, even a Victoria Secret ad, read a Danielle Steel novel, watched a movie that had a sex scene, wandered what kind of body the Statue of Liberty has under that robe, and I can keep going… If you can answer YES to any of these then you are, by social and religious definition, a PERVERT.

    What does it matter who you love?
    What does it matter how you have relations?
    Why does it matter to you?
    Many children see things, hear things, relating to non-homosexual lifestyles that can be consider Perverted or Illmoral, Sex, drugs, pedophilia, rape. All these happen wether these peopel are straight, gay, transsexual, old, young, etc.

    Laws, like passages from the Bible and other religious and “moral” “ideals” and “principles” can be manipulated and interpretted many differnt ways.

    Don’t judge what you don’t understand, and what can be contributed to by you.

  • Anonymous

    Allowing other people to have rights doesn’t diminish your own rights.  Except for your “right” to persecute those other people . . .

    • Anonymous

      Just because you have a pot belly pig living in your house doesn’t mean that you should start calling it a dog.

      • Tedlick Badkey

         Is that all you have?

        You will lose. You have no rational argument in your favor.

      • Anonymous

        for 1smartfish that was one inane comment.

        what did you mean?

        • Anonymous

          Meaning a marriage is between a man and a woman. I don’t care if  same sex couples have all the same rights and headaches. But it’s not a marriage. Can’t come along thousands of years later and change the meaning of it.  Call it whatever you want but not marriage.

          • Anonymous

            that’s like saying black people can sit on the back of the bus and white people can sit in the front of the bus. 

            what you describe is the essence of discrimination, something our Constitution prohibits.

            I am going to take a guess that your reasoning is based upon religious views, and I applaud your faith.  But again, we are a Constitutional nation; not a church state.  A church state:  that is what the Taliban want.

          • Anonymous

            I have no faith. Have  you seen all the trouble  faith has started.

          • Anonymous

            1smartfish I am not sure where you have been living, but the “definition” of marriage has changed at least twice in my lifetime.

            In 1967 the SCOTUS declared the ban on interracial marriage unconstitutional in their Loving v. Virginia decision.

            In 2004 the the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled that it was unconstitutional under the Massachusetts Constitution to allow only heterosexual couples to marry in their Godrich v. Department of Public Health decision.

          • Anonymous

            We agree on one thing, the state should have no say in marriage, plain and simple. Its a religious term.  Im not a even a pious person to understand this.

          • Anonymous

            Marriage is a “religious term”. When did that occur?

            In a modular home the walls that meet in the center are called a “marriage wall”.

          • Anonymous

            Long before modular homes had walls that meet in the center, 2000+ years in fact. 

            Just because h20 prefers to be with h20 rather than ethanol, doesnt mean I call h20 gay when combined, for example. You can use a term and say anything you want, the luxury of our country and language. But what you cant do without experiencing extreme opposition is let a common modular home phrase trump a practice that created the term and has been in existance for milennia.

            I am not fighting this issue with you, I am trying to advise more avenues for desired results.

          • Anonymous

            Interesting enough, I could find no reference to the word marriage deriving from anything to do with a religious institution.

            What I did find was the word can be trace3d back to approximately 1300 C.E. and ultimately derives from Latin mātrimōnium which combines the two concepts mater meaning “mother” and the suffix -monium signifying “action, state, or condition.”

            But here is the bottom line…which is easier to do and costs the taxpayer less money?

            1) Modify state and federal statue to reflect marriage is between one person and one person, or

            2) Change 1,300+ laws, rules and regulations at the federal and state level?

          • Anonymous

            Because your question is a targeted one and constructed for the answer you want, that would be what I call lying with statistics. I will simply state, I would do what it takes to get what I want not based on difficulty or ease. Fortunately for us there have been people in history that insist on going the difficult path to get desired results or we wouldnt be where we are today.

            Here is a question in return for you, how would someone in that time-era become referred to as a mother other than in-vivo?  A virgin miracle? A same sex miracle? Nope, Man and a woman, mātrimōnium.  Even when you continue to argue with me about something I cannot control, you do research to try an validate an argument that is completely based on opinion and belief, all the while aiding my view.  Try and follow, Latin is Roman, Roman is catholic. The term derives from religion. Should the state have a right to recognize marriage? No, because our state and church are separated. The Romans? The church ruled the state. Its safe to say you nor I would like this. I think by including the terminolgy marriage its going to consistently face feirce opposition.  Why is there no willingness to budge or change the terminology? The only thing that happens when alternative ideas are brought up, one is considered offensive, oppressive, & linked to the treatment of slaves.  Famlies and people who experience(d) slavery I feel would be offended by this comparison. There needs to be a person out there that cares enough to work on both sides. I have clearly demonstrated my willingness to do so without belittling or being offensive or defensive. Where is the ablity to compromise?

          • Anonymous

            Your right, it’s not about what is easy or hard…it IS about what is RIGHT.

            Now, on to your questions.

            “Here is a question in return for you, how would someone in that time-era become referred to as a mother other than in-vivo?  A virgin miracle? A same sex miracle? Nope, Man and a woman, mātrimōnium.”

            Actually the word route makes no mention about man. Just woman. Why? I have no idea. I am not a linguist or am I fluent in Latin.
            ~~~~~
            “Should the state have a right to recognize marriage? No, because our state and church are separated.”

            Very interesting. So to be clear are you prepared to give up the 1,300+ rights that you and I enjoy because we are married to opposite sex partners?
            ~~~~~
            “Why is there no willingness to budge or change the terminology?”

            Because the terminology has already changed.

            It has changed at least twice in my life time. In 1967 when the SCOTUS struck down all laws that prohibited interracial marriage in teh U.S.. The decision (Loving v. Virginia) change the definition of marriage in many states by removing race from the equation.

            The second case was in 2003 when the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled that the Massachusetts Constitution could not be used to prohibit same sex marriage. Specifically, the decision (Goodridge v. Department of Public Health) that limiting marriage to one mand and one woman “Barred access to the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage, a person who enters into an intimate, exclusive union with another of the same sex is arbitrarily deprived of membership in one of our community’s most rewarding and cherished institutions. That exclusion is incompatible with the constitutional principles of respect for individual autonomy and equality under law.”
            ~~~~~
            “Where is the ablity to compromise?”

            Compromise was tried in Vermont where Civil Unions were frist tired and later replaced with Marriage (which is another example of the term “marriage’ being changed).

            Would you be willing to compromise on any of your civil rights?

          • Anonymous

            Where we dont see eye to eye is that marriage to me is not a civil right, it is a privelidge founded in religion and meddled with by the State.

            “Actually the word route makes no mention about man. Just woman. Why? I have no idea. I am not a linguist or am I fluent in Latin.” It doesnt even say woman, what it does say was mother.  Try and rack your brain how a “mother” would come about during this time period. The only thing that jumps out at me, and its a wild idea, would be the conception between a man and woman using their 23 chromosomes to create 46 in a single cell. That is the only feasable way other than a virgin miracle which also involved a mother and father.
            “Very interesting. So to be clear are you prepared to give up the 1,300+ rights that you and I enjoy because we are married to opposite sex partners? ” You have not gotten my point if thats what you assume I believe. We all should enjoy the rights involved in a partnership, however marriage  should not be controlled by STATE. It is a RELIGIOUS term adopted by the STATE. This should clear up your third question but in case it doesnt here goes.

            “Because the terminology has already changed.” Proving change to the law is possible and the term MARRIAGE needs to be changed to UNION and left for the CHURCH to decide who can get MARRIED. Of course its not the easy way out because of the changes that would be necessary.  VT proved it wasnt easy but still passed. They are not as religiously conservative and much more liberal than any other state besides maybe Colorado and even then maybe not.

          • Anonymous

            I’m pro-equality,  but anti-modular home.  Haven’t seen one yet that doesn’t have busted sheet rock above the doors and windows.

          • Joseph Willingham

            It is a religious AND a secular term.

            To make marriage ONLY something that churches do, then that sounds like a redefinition as well…

          • Anonymous

            I look at your response and all I can think is, “Why do you care”?”

            Other then bigotry towards gay men and women I really don’t see why anyone would care.

             Just about everyone against these ordinances knows a gay person and most of them except them but are they still hiding their true feelings. Does that one VERY SMALL part of who a person is really hold that much power?  Christianity is supposed to be about forgiveness and acceptance isn’t it? Wha happin”?

            I don’t even acknowledge the phrase “SIN” in this discussion. It’s not a sin. An act between two consulting adults is just that BETWEEN TWO CONSENTING ADULTS..
            How many of you people display a proclivity towards having your toes sucked? Or perform sexual acts that your own religion would frown on?

             Good people are good people,  May offend some to hear but being straight doesn’t make you moral and being gay doesn’t make you immoral

          • Anonymous

            It doesnt offend me when you say that just how it shouldnt offend you when I say straight couples are biologically correct and same sex couples are not. If it does, your mind has convinced you to disregard scientific fact. At which point I leave the discussion of trying to bridge the gap of equality.

          • Anonymous

             So the only reason that you can think of is because PART A doesn’t fit into PART B. Oh yea, whole lotto moral implications there. NOT!

             Funny how a straight man can commit sodomy and never question whether it’s biologically correct.

             In other words it doesn’t affect your life whatsoever and yet you feel obligated to tell others how to live their lives.

             Although I don’t believe in a god I tend to defend many on the right, even Christians. because I feel as though they are being singled out for ridicule. You make it difficult.

             Your not the only one that wants freedom to live your life.

          • Anonymous

            Down through the years, plenty of people have said that marriages like mine are invalid.  Even illegal.  Christian/Jew, that’s like . . . interracial.  Ewwww.

          • Anonymous

            A marriage is also between two halves of a modular home.

            Here we are specifically calling for access to civil marriage, which is a legal contract that conveys over 1,300 benefits and privileges at the federal level alone.

            Besides, we can already marry in churches with religious ceremonies, that has been happening for decades. We just can’t legally join ourselves for tax reasons, etc.

          • Anonymous

            What is a chruch would openly marry gay people? what gives anyone the right to tell that church not to?

      • Anonymous

        Don’t see how calling it a dog hurts anybody.

      • Anonymous

        Huh??

      • Anonymous

        I call my dog a cat all the time. It acts just like one.

        • Anonymous

          lol. 

  • Perverts?  Can you elaborate on that point, please?  I would love to know why you think every gay person is a pervert.  Really.  Thanks a lot for taking the time to clarify.

  • Anonymous

    If we did away with every thing that people did not like we would have nothing  an no jobs

  • Anonymous

    I agree. It is a perversion of justice to take away the rights of a minority due to simple disdain.

  • Anonymous

    It is  a tortuous struggle to take the high ground and fulfill the promise of America for all our citizens.  But with enlightened decisions like this one we will get there some day.

    • Anonymous

      I feel we could get there sooner if the right approach was taken

  • Tedlick Badkey

    “Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted,” the ruling states.

    And that is exactly what I’ve been asking folks against gay marriage to demonstrate for 4 years in these forums… and they never can.

    • Anonymous

      No matter what the state says, they did not create marriage and should not have the right to deny or allow marriage. It was created in the Church. The church controls who gets married, however currently, the state also meddles with the term marriage and strictly for monetary purposes. Including marriage in any legislation violates the separation of Church and State.  I feel there is a huuuuuuuuuuuuge difference between gay marriage and the right of a union.  The state should control & grant unions as a right and priveledge along with all the benefits of two happy people living together and paying their way. Leave marriage up to the Church and religion where it was founded.

      • Tedlick Badkey

        Religion is not civil law.

        What the state should do and what it is doing are (to you) two different things… however, the only relevant one is what they are doing.
        Start a campaign to get the government out of the marriage business. Til that happens, we continue to push for marriage.
        Besides, the way things are now, with fundies trying to stop even civil unions (as we saw in IL), why should we compromise?

        • Anonymous

          Thankfully, religion is not civil law. We would all be in grave danger if that was the case. I am starting to feel inclined to start the compaign myself because the suggestion is ill recieved, yet I feel it would settle alot of people who currently oppose based on wording and push the minority to the ultra-conservative religous people.

          If your attitude is; why should we comprise? I am wasting my time.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            When religious leaders STOP trying to nix civil unions (http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=8157224) then you have room for compromise.
            As long as the attitude in that news story remains, there is no room for compromise.

          • Anonymous

            Im sorry I couldnt read the link

            Page Not Found
            We are sorry, but the URL you requested could not be found. The page you are looking for may have been renamed, moved, or deleted.

            Best of luck in your endeavours.

  • Tedlick Badkey

    The right thing as been done!

    Yesterday… DADT. Today… Prop 8. Tomorrow… DOMA.

  • Tedlick Badkey

     No sweetie, YOU are the one with special rights.

    When this is over, you can marry someone of the same sex if you’d like.

    See? It applies to you too.

  • Anonymous

    …….safe to assume that you’ve had multiple sexual encounters with cousins……by choice.

  • Anonymous

    I assume you mean the 1300+ special rights enjoyed by heterosexuals.

  • Anonymous

    Wise ruling.

  • Anonymous

    Spitting out that bitter Tea all over the country !

  • Anonymous

    Oh no…the right wing hypocrisy earth where you are supposed to do as I say and not as I do just crashed into the sun.

  • Anonymous

    If your church wants to deny marriage to gay couples based on their magic book, they have a right to do that. On the other hand they have no business telling others they can’t marry under the law just because your particular book of fairy tales doesn’t support it. Just because the catholic church doesn’t allow divorce, that will not prevent someone who was married in a catholic church from getting a legal divorce. Gay marriage is no different. You should learn to keep your nose out of other people’s bedrooms.

    • Anonymous

      I couldnt agree with you more. Just as the law has no right incorporating a religious term statue. Constitution 101 separation of church and state. It would be safe to say if there was a push to create civil union from the state for all couples, you would have the support necessary to get the equality desired.

  • Anonymous

    It seems counterproductive to me if the true fight was for state benefits, wouldn’t SS couples want to be flexible to achieve what they want? What I mean by this statement is not intended to offend, but ignite progressive discussion. The term marriage derives from deeply rooted religious ceremonies and has become too closely tied to the state. The state and church are not separated in this matter since they share the same term, causing people of opposite beliefs to strongly disagree. If the legal benefits are all that is desired to obtain equality, SS couples should be flexible with the term and put forth their best effort to create a civil union that has the same benefits of a marriage. Marriage will never change in the religious world where it was created.  I agree for a civil union, but also understand religion will never recognize a SS marriage. Why should the state use a term that was created in the religious realm? This, I believe, is one of the deepest objections people have of SS marriage and if addressed, SS couples wouldn’t experience the opposition we face today.

    • Anonymous

      Which one is easier (and saves tax payer money) to do.

      A) Change a state statue to allow SSM, or

      B) Change approximately 1,300+ laws at the state and federal level to extend those rights and benefits of a “Civil Union” to a same sex couple?

      • Anonymous

        To answer your question truthfully, A.  Although, nothing in life is easy. And if it is, you should always think twice about it. Compromise is the key to progress.

    • Anonymous

      Read the opinion, they talk about the issue of terminology at length. Basically, opposition to allowing gays to call their unions marriages proves the point that the idea is to affirm that gays are less than. The word marriage connotes specific things — long lasting bond, etc. — to bar gays from joining that proves there is a disdain or at least a suggestion of inferiority. It’s the whole “separate but equal” thing all over again (ie. blacks can go to school too, but they can’t go to school with whites). It’s inherently unequal. 

      • Anonymous

        I respectfully disagree. Opposing the position to not allow gays to call their unions marriages and barring gays from joining does not prove disdain or suggest inferiority. It’s just a statement of disagreement nothing more, nothing less.

        • Anonymous

          Like I said, read the opinion. They went into every aspect of this at length. There is no legitimate government interest in barring gays from marriage. None. Forcing them to adopt a different name proves disdain and is used to ensure a mark of inferiority. You can claim it is mere disagreement all you want, but when your campaign ads are labeled “protect marriage,” as in, protect marriage from gays, it certainly does prove otherwise. 

          • Anonymous

            Its not inferiority, its simply just not the root design of the word, plain and simple. The state adopted the term.  Marriages in the religious realm have existed way before democracy. There needs to be a separation of church and state.

          • Joseph Willingham

            But the state is, if you want to use this word, redefining it for ONLY the state.  The churches will not be made to recognize same sex marriages if they don’t want to.
            On a similar note, some churches don’t even recognize marriages performed in other churches or even not in a church at all.  How is this different?

    • Anonymous

      Best post yet.

    • Anonymous

      You need a marriage license from the STATE without a license you can stand around all day in a church, mosque or whatever and you are not considered married.  Religion is not needed in order to get married a marriage license is……civil unions do NOT carry the same rights as marriage (research it the information is out there) and therefore are NOT equal.  Here’s a thought… divorce/remarriage is considered an sin (adultery) in the Bible….so while you all are all deciding if other people you don’t even know can get married….I vote we outlaw divorce…once get married you’re married …for life…..too bad so sad if you or your spouse change your mind……how’d you like that??  Not so much I suspect.   Pfffffffft.

      • Anonymous

        At no point did I ever bring sarcasm or radical ideas to the table. Im sorry you feel the need to to explain your point that way, at no point was the intention to offend you. You speak of nothing new to me other than your radical idea of outlawing divorce. Shall we outlaw obesity too? I think so, however that is beside the point. We cant go outlawing everything we disagreee with, constitutionally not possible.   As I said before it wasnt intended to offend and I am well aware of the research and data you speak of. If you would have read my post clearly and understood what I meant, we are on the same page.  The STATE has adopted a RELIGIOUS term. We are all tought about our constitution very early on in childhood and one of the first learned is the separation of CHURCH and STATE. Its very clear from the opposition SS couples face today, there is no separation in the term shared, marriage, only grey area open for interpretation. The last thing you want is people to start interpretating controversial topics.

    • Anonymous

      We already have access to religious marriage, gay couples have had marriage ceremonies for decades.

      We are fighting the government for civil marriage. This should not be seen as encroaching on the term marriage any moreso than other uses of the term, such as the marriage wall in a modular home, or the ‘marriage of two ideas’…

      • Anonymous

        By addressing the term marriage as its an average word like marriage of a wall or marriage of two ideas is down playing the term marriage and people who hold their marriage sacred will be offended=loss of support. Also, just becauze our ability to change and incessive need to slang use the english language doesnt proove any point. And it still doesnt change, by using the term marriage in a sentence other than between people, that it was created in the religious realm, for a man and a woman to procreate.  The majority of the religions in our country do not recognize or will not perform SS mariagges, however there are exceptions in all cases, this being no different with a few religions that do recognize, true. However a minority vote wont get results. All I am trying to do is help minimize the opposition by suggestion a change of wording. A civil union should exist in state to equalize benefits betweeen two people who work as one, fact. Trying to find a common ground here. Is civil union a bad thing?

        • Anonymous

          I would counter that by pretending that the word marriage is somehow so special that it can’t be used for civil marriage between a same sex couple ignores it’s other uses such as the ones I pointed out.

          To answer your question though— I am FINE with civil unions as long as it’s the same solution for everyone. In other words, no one gets civil marriage licenses, everyone gets civil union licenses, and we all get our marriage ceremonies in the churches of our choice as we can do now.

          But if you are proposing a separate system for gays and lesbians to save “civil marriage” as a term for heterosexual couples… that won’t pass constitutional scrutiny, and would eventually be struck down as unconstitutional just as segregation was in Brown v Board of Education.

          • Anonymous

            There is no pretending over here, marriage IS a word that IS so special because of its roots. Thats why it needs to be dropped from the state. Civil unions from the state, marriages by religion. Just because its used in common sentences by people, doesnt take away the founding of the term. There is no pretending how special the word marriage is.  The moment you down play a sacred term you loose support. I thought the idea is to gain support to gain equality, not loose support and feel inferior.

          • Anonymous

            All well and good as long as groups like NOM would agree….which they have publicly stated they would not.

          • Anonymous

            So you are going to stop there because of NOM? If you have the majority, who cares what an ultra conservative non-profit stance is? If they ran our country we would all be in trouble.  All I can do is try to give you an approach a moderately political and religious person would vote for. Why not find out why people oppose (you’d be suprised the amount of people oppose based on wording, not morality. Doesnt make it right, but makes you better consciously aware) and work within those findings to restructure the change and still have the same result? 

          • Joseph Willingham

            Actually, we are gaining support in strides…

          • Anonymous

            Best of luck!

          • Anonymous

            I think we’re on the same side here, we can agree to disagree on how special the letters m-a-r-r-i-a-g-e are to a single usage in our culture.

            To me, “holy matrimony” is the religious term, while “civil marriage” is wholly the license and legal benefits aspect.

        • Anonymous

          Read the opinion, they talk at length about wording. The court refused to accept another word choice for same-sex couples as it clearly designates gays to a lower status without serving a legitimate government purpose. You’re making a separate but equal argument and it has long been established that separate is inherently unequal.

          • Anonymous

            You are correct, however, I must not have made my point clear enough. The state has no right to recognize marriage on any level, SS or OS couples. Plain and simple. Do away with marriage in the state and creat civil union. Leave marriage up to religion where it was founded. I am only trying to simplify your battle to hopefully gain desired resutls. You think the U.S. is stubborn in our relgious beleifs? I believe there are much more serious conflicts in the world, take a look at the middle east for the last 2000+ years.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t understand why same sex couples would want to marry. Or why I should care if they do or don’t. Sounds to me like a family lawyer’s boat payment act.

    • Anonymous

      I want to marry to help protect the livelihood I have built with my partner whom I have shared decades of my life with. Thanks for not opposing my need for civil marriage.

    • Anonymous

      Great tax benifits as well

      • Anonymous

        Sometimes there are tax benefits, but not always. There are gay couples I know who would benefit because they are raising children, and one parent could stay home while the other works and the tax benefits would help greatly.

        In my situation, because me and my partner both make around the same amount of income, we would actually pay more in taxes once married.

        But I’m fine with that, because that is just one of the 1,300+ benefits and privileges contingent on marital status at the federal level alone. Civil marriage is something we need to protect our life together.

    • Joseph Willingham

      If life were just one big rosy bowl of love and happiness, then it wouldn’t matter.  

      So, why do straight people get married?  They get married for the same reasons gay people want to get married.

  • Anonymous

    I thought that we were a country founded on freedom and liberty. How is telling two consenting adults that they cannot marry one another freedom and liberty?

  • Anonymous

    So do bisexual get to marry one  from each gender?

    • Anonymous

      I didn’t realize that Mormonism recognized homosexuals or bisexuals.

    • Anonymous

      No.

  • Joseph Willingham

    Good news for sure. 

    Again, I wish the video from the original trial would be made available.  I think it would open the eyes of some people when they see the nonsense and lies that the Prop 8 supporters used in their arguments.

  • Anonymous

    Yanno, this “one man and one woman” thing isn’t even true today.  Muslims allow plural marriage.  Mormons only dumped it to get statehood for Utah.  And how many wives does Newt have?  “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

You may also like