PORTLAND, Maine — The feeling that public opinion is swinging their way permeated an event Sunday where Democrats and gay rights advocates gathered to support a marriage equality referendum question that will face Maine voters in November.
Gay couples in Maine have been close to having marriage rights in Maine before — the Legislature approved them in 2009, only to have the law repealed in a citizen-initiated referendum later that year — but this time things are different, according to Sarah Holmes and Anna Schwartz, a couple from Portland. The repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” guideline in the military and President Barack Obama’s declaration that he now supports marriage equality are two examples of growing support for the gay community, but Holmes and Schwartz said they can also see it in their day-to-day lives.
“I think hearts and minds are slowly changing,” said Holmes. “More Maine people and people across the country are starting to realize it’s not a threat to anybody.”
Sunday’s 5th annual Maine Dems Have Pride celebration at Restaurant Grace in downtown Portland attracted well more than 100 people who paid at least $35 each for the brunch event. Maine Democratic Party Chairman Ben Grant said the proceeds would support the party’s operations, including advocacy for the upcoming same-sex marriage referendum.
Maine Democrats used the event to release a short “It Gets Better” video aimed at lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered youth who are struggling with thoughts of depression or suicide. The It Gets Better Project, which was created in 2010 by author Dan Savage, has become a worldwide movement that has resulted in the production of more than 50,000 videos that have been viewed online more than 50 million times. Grant said the Maine Democratic Party’s submission is only the second that has ever been produced by a state political party.
“[The video has] a great message, especially for young people who are feeling bullied or alone, to show them that they have support and to give them a couple of resources to turn to if they think they are in need,” said Grant. “Every year there’s more and more enthusiasm for expanding the rights of gay people and the Democratic Party stands shoulder to shoulder with that effort.”
The video suggested that anyone suffering abuse or loneliness because they are gay contact the Trevor Project by calling 866-488-7386, or by visiting www.trevorproject.org.
With the referendum still months away, the groundwork is being laid for another intense campaign, though a political action committee called Mainers United for Marriage has raised far more money than Protect Marriage Maine, which leads the opposition. The Bangor Daily News reported earlier this month that the pro-gay marriage group far outpaced Protect Marriage Maine in early fundraising efforts, tallying $359,000 compared with about $10,000.
Carroll Conley of Protect Maine Marriage has said that fundraising for the opposition would begin in earnest on Father’s Day weekend when more than 150 Maine churches will take special collections for the campaign.
“We know from the last campaign that we aren’t going to be able to raise as much money as the other side will,” he said, according to the BDN’s archives. “If we are able to raise $1 million in this state, that would be tremendous.”
The Maine Democrats also named Tom Reynolds and Ira Bittues of Lewiston the 2012 Partner in Pride Award recipients. Reynolds and Bittues, who are a couple, are active in the state party, the Androscoggin County Dems and Equality Maine.
“A lot of people have done just as much as work as we have and also deserve this award,” said Reynolds. “We’re slowly changing hearts and minds. It’s about people realizing that marriage for same-sex couple is the same as it is for everyone else. It’s not a special right.”
Other nominees for this year’s award were Elizabeth Allen, a field organizer for Equality Maine; Rep. Emily Cain, D-Orono; Lis Clark, leader of a group called “Out As I Want To Be”; Democratic activist Jesse Connolly; Equality Maine board member Timothy Diehl; gay rights activist in Maine and North Carolina Jeremy Kennedy; MaKayla Reed, a volunteer for the Hancock County Democrats and Equality Maine; and Rep. Diane Russell, D-Portland.
Among the featured speakers at Sunday’s rally was U.S. Rep. Chellie Pingree, D-Maine, who praised President Barack Obama for his historic announcement in support of gay marriage earlier this year — which marked the first time a sitting U.S. president has done so.
“There’s probably no more important thing that we do this year to advance the cause of equality than to elect pro-equality legislators,” she said.
I am a registered democrat but that will change monday morning, then I will be an Independant. I can see that my old party still has that same sex marriage noose around it’s neck. That outfit just don’t get it. Maybe a “little bird” will drop them a hint in November.
Yeah–why support a party that works for equality for all Americans when the other one believes in white, male, Christian exceptionalism. It’s a no-brainer. Duh…….
Well put.
Wow…100 people in a city like Portland, that’s huge.
Oh no, you would only want to affiliate yourself with politicians that support hate and discrimination.
I wish Republicans would embrace equal treatment for gays and lesbians, and eliminate this wedge issue Democrats enjoy. It’s preposterous to assume all gays and lesbians are liberals, but it’s very difficult for conservative gays to vote for a party explicitly treating them like second class citizens.
No worries, Barney Frank is going to come straighten us all out on this issue. If this is what passing this would do for this state, it may hurt, more than help their cause.
They are wasting their time. It ain’t gonna pass in November.
Yes because working towards extending a civil right is always a bad idea.
What about the civil rights of the people who have repeatedly voted this down? Why do the dems keeps bringing it back over and over??
“What about the civil rights of the people who have repeatedly voted this down?” You mean the right to deny other people the rights that you enjoy? That “right” doesn’t exit.
“Why do the dems keeps bringing it back over and over??” Because it’s the right thing to do.
No I mean that the state of Maine does not wish to make same sex marriage legal in this state. Instead of respecting this vote they keep putting more money towards it and keep bringing it back. I do not understand the “right” you are talking about. There is not any reason why marriage needs to be changed to fit someone else’s defination.
zzzzz
So what is next. Should one man be able to marry 6 women and have it legal?? There needs to be a standard set. Marriage is one man and one woman. If homosexuals do not want to be part of what a “marriage” is then why don’t they come up with a suitable legal name for what they are.
Jennifer the word has been redefined already.
My dear Jennifer: If marriage was, as you define it: “one man and one woman” then why all the divorce and remarriage. Newt Gingrich and three wives? Elizabeth Taylor and how many? And by the way, Polygamy has been legal on and off in the world for centuries, so what you are arguing about here seems to be YOUR definition of marriage, not the world view. So lets do this….you have your definition of marriage and don’t worry about everyone else. Marriage should be between two people who love each other.
You should learn more about civil marriage then, if you don’t understand what we are fighting for.
There are well over 1,100 benefits and privileges extended by our federal government contingent on marital status. It is wrong to discriminate against same sex couples who wish to enter into a civil marriage to protect the lives they are building together.
And you do realize that hundreds of thousands of Maine citizens DO want to make same sex marriage legal in this state, don’t you?
The government has no business having 1,100 benefits and privileges contingent on marital status. Marriage is between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation. If a person doesn’t want to have children, fine then don’t need to get married. Homosexuals do not care about the marriage what they want is acceptance of their being homosexual. I can not and will not accept homosexuality since it is one of the 4 sins that cries out to heaven for God’s vengeance . I don’t care if hundreds of thousands of people want it, God doesn’t want it.
I was going to debate your comment about Marriage, procreation and the government. Then you had to drag religion into a conversation about Civil Laws. There is no point in trying to debate with a person who feels his/her interpretation of a (any) religion should be the law of the land.
“drag” religion into it? God Created man and woman and Created marriage and you call it a problem to drag God into it? Its too bad you don’t care what He thinks about it… you will one day. The Bible is the final authority on this subject. Man may try to ‘redefine’ marriage but God hasn’t changed His mind about it. No civil law is going to make a sin a justice. A society that promotes homosexuality is endangering it’s very existence. God destroyed Sodom because of this very sin. Homosexuality is a form of sodomy. It is a filthy, disgusting lifestyle. If someone one wants to marry a cow or a dog are you going to fight for their rights too?
The bible is no more the “final authority” over civil laws any more than the Koran, Torah, Bhagavad Gita, or any other religious text. You are more than welcome to use your interpretations of any religious text on how to live YOUR life. You do not have the right to force those same interpretations on anybody else.
I think a lot of things are filthy and disgusting. However, as long as it isn’t causing harm to others, I don’t go out of my way to make my feelings on those actions a law.
As for inter-species marriage? Well, when you develop that moo/bark to human translator so we can ascertain the dog or cow is agreeable to a contract, and you can get them sign a contract, then I’ll worry about it. As the laws apply to humans, consenting adults, your argument is specious at best. Ridiculous would be a better adjective.
Here is a quote for you covering the sins of Sodom, as you have misappropriated them
“Sodom is referenced multiple times in the Bible as an example of great sinning. And what might that sin be?
In
Isaiah 1:10-17 it is thought to be injustice, not rescuing the
oppressed, defending the orphan, pleading for the widow. In Jeremiah
23:14 it is adultery. In Ezekiel 16:48-49 it is the sin of not aiding
the “poor and needy.” In Zephaniah 2:8-11 the sin is bullying, boasting
and pride. In the Wisdom of Solomon it is “the bitter hatred of
strangers.” ” –http://www.thegodarticle.com/7/post/2011/10/clobbering-biblical-gay-bashing.html
Also consider that the story of Sodom covers gang rape, which is hardly akin to homosexuality.
But before you go on, perhaps you should aquatint yourself with some of the defenses against the bible you choose to cite
1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-shore/the-best-case-for-the-bible-not-condemning-homosexuality_b_1396345.html
2. http://www.jpnordin.com/christianity/bible/hs/
You also propose the straw man argument of people marrying livestock or their pets if gay marriage is passed. This was also claimed for interracial marriage before it became legal. The thing is, this argument is pointless. I would certainly hope you can tell the difference between consenting adults marring and someone committing bestiality.
Also do not forget that you do not live in a theocracy. You live in a democracy with the freedom of religion. This means that you and other religious people are free to practice how you want. If your church/denomination doesn’t support gay marriage, you cannot be forced to recognize it. On the flip side of this you don’t have the right to force your religious views on other citizens of this country. Oh and there are many other religions that have no issue with same-sex marriage, and you forcing your view on them would be denying them their religious freedom.
Finally, and I know you don’t want to admit it, but the bible is hardly a final authority. Before anything was written down for the old testament, it was passed down by oral tradition. Who knows what could have been changed there, and that’s just the beginning.
But in the end it is a book written by man, inspired by their view of God and their understanding at the time. And you can quote 2 Timothy all you want (which doesn’t even cover the entire bible according to the NIV), but it is still a logical fallacy of appeal to authority and doesn’t make it any more true than the Quran’s claim to be the word of Allah (which also claims it cannot be broken, just like the bible).
The vote was respected and now the question is being asked again.
The fact that people voted on this issue once before doesn’t mean that it should always and forever be this way. If the people still don’t want it, then we’ll know in November. If it does pass, then that will tell us that the people DO want it. Either way, you have nothing to worry about.
But again, what civil rights are being violated by asking this question again?
“What about the civil rights of the people who have repeatedly voted this
down?”
Well let me answer your question…because the rights of a minority should never be put up for a popular vote of the majority.
~~~~~
Now here are two question for you:
1. Why do you think it took a SCOTUS decision in 1967 to end the ban on interracial marriage?
2. Why didn’t it go to a vote in each of the southern states to end the ban?
~~~~~
“Why do the dems keeps bringing it back over and over??”
Were you asked to sign a petition to put this question on the ballot? If you were did they ask you party affiliation prior to signing? Jennifer, this question was brought to you by the People of Maine that signed a petition to put it pn a ballot. No party affiliation was asked prior to signing. Any registered Maine voter was allowed to sign the petition.
Interracial marriage is a totally different issue. Trying to make me out to be a racsist is a nice touch though.
First never said or implied you were “racist”. You asked a question and I answered that question without calling names
I then asked two questions along the same lines as the one you asked, questions that you haven’t answered yet I might add.
Now that we have that out of the way how is interracial marriage “different” from SSM?
Because it had nothing to do with men marrying men or women marrying women. It still maintained that marriage was between a man and women.
That’s a small and irrelevant distinction though. The arguments were identical. And those against interracial marriage felt just as strong as you do.
Small and irrelevant distinction??? Then why in heavens name aren’t they getting married already? I’ll tell you why. It’s a chosen lifestyle based on a sexual perversion. That alone gives them no reason to Change the meaning of marriage. One mam and one woman, Gods design. Anything else is a perversion.
Laws in the United States are not based on ANY religions beliefs.
Have you read Loving v. Virgina Mountain? Because if you had you would know that the SCOTUS ruled that marriage was a basic civil right. It also said that to deprive the right of marriage based on the color of ones skin was unconstitutional and vacated ALL laws in the U.S. that prohibited interracial marriage. Now keep in mind this ring came down while Jim Crow laws where still very previlant all of the U.S. and I remember “negros” being told to move to the back of the bus, etc…even in Boston. So why do you think the SCOTUS will rule differently when Prop 8 heads towards them next year? Better yet when the recent Circuit Court ruling finding the DOMA unconstitutional makes it to the SCOTUS?
Why are so many blacks opposed to homosexual marriage? As a race they oppose it more than white people. Isn’t that strange? You see you actually insult people when you compare their race to a sexual perversion. It’s one of the great lies pushed onto our youth by homosexual activist such as yourself.
They’re not. Check out the new polls, pumpkin. xoxo
cp444 bro!!! Where have you been? Seems that wherever it was you have been off the grid. That’s not a bad thing until you make statements not based in fact. You must have missed the largest black organization in the country came out and endorsed SSM, the NAACP.
So do we now move onto the “slippery slope” argument or will it be the “we are a Christian nation” argument or will it be “SSM makes my marriage less meaningful” or will it be “you are redefining the word marriage”? It really would be a lot more fun if you came up with something new.
Our president and commander in chief also endorsed homosexuality. Are we to assume America is for it based on his endorsement? Hardly. Every time it’s been voted on its been rejected…bro.
Leadership begins at the top bro.
“Have you read Loving v. Virgina Mountain? Because if you had you would know that the SCOTUS ruled that marriage was a basic civil right.”
I believe we have both read it but you appear to be the one who is confused. SCOTUS ruled that a man of any race had a right to marry any woman he chose regardless of her race and vise versa for a woman.
SCOTUS did not rule that a man of any race had a right to marry any other man he chose of any race or vise versa for a woman.
If SCOTUS had ruled as you would like everyone to believe then we would not have to vote to allow SSM in Maine or anywhere esle as it would already be the law of the land.
Mountain you just do not understand do you. You have to look at HOW the SCOTUS arrived at the decision they did. What you are doing is called a “narrow interpretation of the ruling”.
In Loving v. Virginia the SCOTUS established that marriage was a fundamental civil right in the United States. Further, it ruled that to deny that fundamental right based on the color of ones skin was unconstitutional. Now they could have stopped right there and only struck down Virginia’s law about interracial marriage but they didn’t. They ruled that ALL laws that prevented interracial marriage in the United States were null and void. In other words based on the 14th Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause they said interracial marriage was the law of the land.
Now fast forward 35 years and we arrive at Prop 8 headed to the SCOTUS. Now they could refuse to hear that case which would allow the lower courts ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional to stand or they could take it up. I am willing to bet that they will take it up and they will use the same rational that was used in 1967 in Loving v. Virginia. Further, just like in 1967 you have some states that allow and recognize SSM and some that don’t. This case is perfect for the SCOTUS and it will be a landmark decision which ever way it goes.
Actually my interpretation is exactly how the court ruled. You only wish to charachterize it as narrow so that you can paint their decision with a broader brush so that it fits your cause. I do not believe that SCOTUS will take it up but if they do I believe they will over turn the lower courts ruling.
Mountain your reading is correct. But do not ignore how prior rulings are used in future cases. If you do you might be very surprised.
As the the court taking or not taking this case. I can almost guarantee they will. It only take one Justice to agree to take a case and a case with the ramifications this ones has…well let’s say it would be shocking if they didn’t take it on. The safe bet in 1967 was a ruling against overturning the ban on interracial marriage. The safe bet in 1976 was a ruling allow abortion in the U.S.. Both rulings went against the common sense and logic of the day and against “majority” of the citizens in the U.S.
Don’t be so sensitive. I see no point where he suggested you were a racist. I think he was trying to illustrate the fact that when a minority’s civil rights are up for vote, the majority almost always vote against it. If it were not for the Loving vs. Virginia case, interracial marriage would likely still be illegal.
Actually Interracial marriage is a very similar issue. The issue of two people who are in a loving and committed relationship and are not allowed to take the final step and get married to not only share their love with friends and family, but to take advantage of all the rights and protections that a civil marriage conveys to a married couple.
If you are not in favor of civil mariage for same sex couples, then by all means, do not get one. However, you should not be able to vote on whether or not I am allowed civil protections under the law of the United States of America. But, since the people of the state of Maine have spoken and are putting the question of my civil rights to a popular vote, I will fight tooth and nail to win at the ballot box.
If you had been born during the Women’s Suffrage movement, would you have fought for your rights to vote and to be treated as an equal? If so, why do you want to curtail the rights of a minority now?
psychiatric problems does not equal color of skin.
timmy…”psychiatric problems”? Who’s “psychiatric problems”?
SS couples that cannot distinguish the difference betwwen friendship and lust. It is nothing more than a sexual perversion.It is sad that SS couples have prayed on our young to further their case.Yet not surprising.Look at the kids their books and teaching have messed up.
Timmy try answering the question that was based on your statement. I will even help you out, here is your statement:
“psychiatric problems does not equal color of skin.”
Here is my question:
“timmy…”psychiatric problems”? Who’s “psychiatric problems”?”
And your answer to this question would be?
You’re deflecting. While it is not the same issue, there are parallels.
I cannot seem to get across the point. If a man decides he wants to start using the ladies restroom instead of the mens, then when denied he cries FOUL! My civil liberties are being trampled on. It is the same deal. If you do not want to play by the rules than don’t expect to be part of the game. Marriage is great for so many reasons. My husband is amazing and being married to him is by far, the best thing to ever happen to me, but never ever would I have said that we need to get married because of all the “benefits” GIVE ME A BREAK!
Jennifer I guess I will start at the end and work backwards.
“My husband is amazing and being married to him is by far, the best thing
to ever happen to me, but never ever would I have said that we need to
get married because of all the “benefits” GIVE ME A BREAK!”
I know that I have certainly not said that people should get married for the “benefits” but I do know this…heterosexual couples in some case do get married for that very reasons and so will some homosexual couples. I have been married for 25+ years and SSM has no impact, zero, nada, zip, nothing on the value of that marriage. How does SSM impact YOUR marriage?
~~~~~
“If you do not want to play by the rules than don’t expect to be part of the game. Marriage is great for so many reasons. ”
Actually Jennifer they do want to play by the same rules. They (homosexual couples) want to play by the same rules that I play by. But they can’t because in Maine they aren’t allowed to.
~~~~~
“My civil liberties are being trampled on. It is the same deal.”
How? Specifically how are your civil liberties lessened or impacted because two men or two women get married? But let me be clear….I am speaking about REAL harm i.e. my marriage is lessened because…..
~~~~~
“If a man decides he wants to
start using the ladies restroom instead of the mens, then when denied he
cries FOUL!”
I was TOLD to use the women’s room at a Circle K because the men’s room was occupied. I refused…my employer had unisex bathroom. Everybody used he same one. Maybe not at the same time but come on…how often has that happened to you. Want to know what tics me off…bus tours that decide to use BOTH bathrooms and the husbands stand outside the men’s room barring it’s use because their wives are using it. It is a matter of being inconsiderate to your fellow humans….SSM is not.
~~~~~
Jennifer many people have been asked many times to answer a question without using the words “feeling”, “think”, “believe”, etc…How does SSM devalue or impact your marriage to your husband?
Jennifer, the voters repealed a law which extended civil marriage licenses to same-sex couples once in 2009 – not repeatedly. I don’t know if it was Democrats or Republicans or Independents or Libertarians that brought the repeal petition or vote to the people …. perhaps it was a combination. Both support and opposition of this issue cross party lines.
Correct. Here’s an interesting article about a major Republican fundraiser who has founded a super PAC to support marriage equality.
http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/2012/06/11/major-republican-fundraiser-to-found-marriage-equality-super-pac/
Voting on the issue of marriage equality has happened once, not repeatedly. Would you tell me what civil rights of yours are being trampled upon?
Thanks
zzzzzzz
You are exercising your rights when you vote, so what’s the problem?
On what of your “civil rights” does same-sex marriage infringe? NONE! This is precisely why “rights” should never go in front of the voters. You either have rights or you don’t — you just can’t vote on them!
How are your civil rights in any way affected by other people getting married?
What??? They still have their right to marry the person they love.
Civil rights don’t include the right to keep your fellow Americans down.
Joe this issue has nothing to do with marrying the person you love. The real issue is, homosexuals want acceptance them having intercourse with a person of the same sex. Sorry Joe it isn’t going to happen because God forbids it.
If have said this before and I will say it again. The motive behind the movement to pass a law making same-sex marriage legal has nothing to do with equality or civl rights. The sole purpose of this law is to justify and legitimize homosexuality. If the law says two members of the same sex can marry then it must be ok, right?
I have no problem with what two consenting adults choose to do in the privacy of their own home. It’s their business. I do however have a problem when people try to pass a law just to justify their lifestyle so they can feel better about themselves.
Okay, then you have no right to vote and you have to pay more in taxes. Just you because you’re a mountain man. This has nothing to do with civil rights or equality, mountain people are just less than. Why would you want to vote anyway? You’re just trying to legitimize mountain people and make yourself feel better. Do whatever you want in your own home, but we’re going to use the law to make sure you’re of a lower status. Sorry.
And I have a problem when our government discriminates against a set of citizens for no demonstrably valid reason.
The motive here is absolutely to gain equal access to civil marriage. That’s what’s at stake, that’s what’s on the ballot, and that’s what we’ve always talked about.
Odd that you have this perspective of the our agenda. I didn’t even know that this is what we’re doing. How did you get your hands on that memo? I want it, too!
“…and legitimize homosexuality”
A little information for you. Homosexuality is already “legitimized”. It is not illegal to be homosexual.
I will vote for what’s right even if I don’t win. Extending civil marriage to same sex couples is absolutely the right thing to do, so more Maine families can protect the lives they build together, and the children they raise together.
The pursuit of happiness isn’t just for straight people any more! This may not pass in November, but those of us who believe that sexual orientation shouldn’t be a barrier to legal marriage will not give up. Period.
Well you are all wasting your time then because Mainers care more about Jobs, Prosperity and getting all of their Freedoms back that Maine Dems took away the last 40 years. When are Liberals and Special Rights for a few going to realize the Maine People spoke loud and clear 3 years ago and will do so this year again. The first polls are alot closer than the first polls taken in 2009 so if that indicates anything Gay Marriage folks better be worried because they NO side could win by larger margins this time.
dark you are not the first person to make claims about close polls but never back up the claims with those polls. Would you please do so.
It’s not special to be treated equally.
” “…”treated equally.” ”
***********************
The Constitution already protects your right to pursue happiness. Go for it, and earn your own respect in your own way!
However, your (plural) demands that all traditional Americans respect you (plural) without respecting their right to define their own one man/one woman marriage is the source of your own frustration. Are you capable of respecting individuals of OM/OW for their chosen historical marriage definition? …”treated equally”… goes both ways.
Individuals involved in either straight or gay relationships earn the reputation of their relationships for better or worse. Your institution can be named anything you want to call it and you can earn your own solid social reputations in whatever manner you choose……….. just like everyone else.
The Constitution ensures equal protection under the law for similarly situated individuals. That means you don’t get to errect certain laws that discriminate simply because you feel like it. It was once traditional to one set of people sit in a certain section of the train. Not constitutional. The Constitution does not guarantee your right to discriminate and use the law against those you disagree with. The Constitution provides rights for all, not just those who are popular or “respected.”
Also, it’s a bit telling that it’s hatred that motivates your opinions when you use the “you people” talk.
Last thing first. All people with unclouded reading comprehension skills can understand the structure of my post. Perhaps if you re-read it you might be able to as well unless now you want to redefine first, second and third persons singular and plural.
Further, it is very possible to understand the Original Intent of all the founding documents in limiting the power of Government and de-limiting the lives of individuals.
You (singular) are committed in your bias and therefore incapable of the respect of others. The taken opportunity to blame those others is the mark of a tooth-bearing coward but I assure you the boogieman you fear is not the one you blame.
And you think it is respectful to deny others the same rights you enjoy? Dressed up bigotry is still bigotry.
As I posted in this original post, “The Constitution already protects your right to pursue happiness. Go for it, and earn your own respect in your own way!”
This statement is neither hateful or dis-repectful …nor is the suggestion that gays create a non-Marriage institution of their own name and definition. Why would you want to live under others’ definitions if it’s a lie to you? The country we live in provides amply for self-creation just as Americans have done from the beginning as life issues appeared to them. What do you fear?
Mechanics of money and benefit matters are solvable within the parameters of the judicial/ legal system in place with sagacious Constitutional application. The “rights” you identify beyond those matters are (dare I say it!) ethically self-earned reputations rather than legally bestowed law and will yield the level of respect you currently demand others give you.
Concurrently, married straights choose their own level of respect as well, sometimes reputable and other times, not so much.
They’re not beyond constitutional matters as the Constitution guarantees equal protection. What do you fear? Equal rights will somehow mean you’re less free?
As I posted in this original post, “The Constitution already protects your right to pursue happiness. Go for it, and earn your own respect in your own way!”
Time constrains me from replying any further right now but perhaps someone else can carry this rebuttal foward in my stead…
You don’t have a real response. You have arrogant condescension that is completely unwarranted. Equal protection under the law. Period.
Blame, blame and more blame. Blame till you’re blue in the face if that makes you feel self-rectified.
I didn’t blame anyone. Again, weird and baseless condescension that doesn’t even make sense.
Equal protection under the law. Period.
“Dressed up bigotry is still bigotry.”
Exactly and that’s what you’re doing under the veil of claiming to protect “tradition.” Pathetic.
It is clear that you cannot accept responsibility for blaming others. Expect no further responses from me.
Hey dark….still waiting for those links to the polls the SSM vote to be “alot closer than the first polls taken in 2009″…where are they?
….
….
Never worry about polls. Figures don’t lie but liars can figure. Just watch the news stories about the polls saying how much the people like what Obama is doing.
….
We’re talking about Maine, brah.
While I don’t usually like to use Wikipedia as a source, this reference has a nice list with footnotes. I am enclosing the wikilink because that link will take you to this article where can click on the footnotes to see the actual sources of these numbers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Maine
A March 2011 survey by Public Policy Polling found that 47% of Maine voters supported the legalization of same-sex marriage, while 45% were opposed and 8% were not sure.[32]
A May 2011 poll conducted by Goodwin Simon Strategic Research found that 53% of Maine voters were in favour of legalization of same-sex marriage, 39% were against.[33]
An October 2011 Public Policy Polling survey found that 51% of Maine voters thought same-sex marriage should be legal, while 42% thought it should be illegal and 8% were not sure. A separate question on the same survey found that 82% of respondents supported legal recognition of same-sex couples, with 46% supporting same-sex marriage, 36% supporting civil unions, 17% opposing all legal recognition and 1% not sure.[34]
A March 2012 Public Policy Polling survey found that 54% of Maine voters supported the legalization of same-sex marriage, while 41% opposed it and 5% were not sure.[35]
According to a poll conducted between March 31 and April 2, 2012 by the Maine People’s Resource Center, 58.2% of registered voters support allowing same-sex couples to marry, 39.9% oppose it.[36]
Like I said. Figures don’t lie but liars can figure!
It’s a sad commentary you make on your fellow Mainers that you imply that they can’t be concerned more than one issue.
I will say, though, that there was a freedom that the Dems “gave” in 2009 that was taken away that same year by conservatives. Funny, huh?
James, James, James…what’s the matter? Can’t make a point without insulting people?
He drew first blood.
Ah so two wrongs now make a right…I see…never turn the other cheek…just get your jab in…I understand now.
My cheek looks like a waffle. Time for phase two.
“I never drew first but I drew first blood, I’m the Devil’s son, call me Young Gun” – Jon Bon Jovi
Great now I’m going to have that song in my head all day.
What’s wrong with having equal rights? Didn’t we start this country because we didn’t like people telling us what we can and cannot do?
So now we have our Political parties trying to tell us what to do? This is not about equal rights this is about special rights. The basic example is simple, a church has the right to refuse to marry any man or woman, but if the law passes…it will lose the right to deny a gay couples. Gay folks will argue that isn’t true but there are dozens of cases in other states where it has been true. It doesn’t get much clearer than that!
“The basic example is simple, a church has the right to refuse to marry any man or woman, but if the law passes…it will lose the right to deny a gay couples.”
That is a flat out lie. That is the only way to put it.
~~~~~
“Gay folks will argue that isn’t true but there are dozens of cases in other states where it has been true.”
No, straight folks like myself will call it a lie because it is a lie. So, now PROVE your claim that it is happening in other states and PROVE that the law in Maine will allow it too. If you don’t you just confirm that your post is a lie and intentionally misleading.
Well said! I hope you aren’t holding your breath for a reply, though.
Please cite your sources for these churches that have lost their right to refuse to marry a gay couple ….. where in the US of A and when – a search on the internet comes up with zero.
I’d love to know about those dozens of examples. Can you cite specifics?
The question on the ballot in November will specifically protect churches:
“Do you favor a law allowing marriage licenses for same-sex couples that protects religious freedom by ensuring no religion or clergy be required to perform such a marriage in violation of their religious beliefs?”
That’s a lie. Does the state force churches to marry interfaith couples? Force them to marry people that have previously been divorced? The answers are no and that wouldn’t change here either. There are absolutely not “dozens of cases.” That’s a lie.
Churches don’t have to marry STRAIGHT couples if they don’t want to. so, why the heck would they have to marry a gay person again? Do priests also work for the government now? It is almost as if the anti-gay movement is WILLFULLY ignorant of reality when they come up with a talking-point that will give the biggest knee-jerk reaction. Thankfully, people are getting smarter. If it doesn’t work this year, it will work within a few years. Maine polls better on gay marriage every year. When it DOES become legal in this state, those poor people have been making so much money off the hate will become disenfranchised. Thankfully, the church has lots of issues with modern society and they can keep the money coming in with the next round of fake outrage.
You’re completely wrong here.
Churches will always have the right to refuse marriage ceremonies to any man or woman. They do so today! Catholic churches can refuse to marry someone who’s been excommunicated from their church, for example. This is very well protected by our first amendment.
As for ‘special rights’– we are asking for the same rights and benefits others get with a civil marriage license. So if anything, it’s those who can currently marry who are receiving the special rights.
Please, point us to any of your “dozens of cases” where a church was forced to hold a marriage ceremony. It simply doesn’t happen.
Correct. Opposite gendered couples now have rights that same-gendered couples don’t.
I wonder if that’s who Mike Heath is fighting against with his “No Special Rights” PAC….?
I have been amazed for years as to how Heath makes his money. I am sure Jesus would be proud.
You are spreading lies.
The church will still be able to NOT marry me and my boyfriend. However, our church will now be allowed to legally marry us.
At the same time, the law will allow NON-CHURCH marriages to occur as well.
Please tell us where it has happened that a church has been forced to marry a couple against its will.
And please understand that the majority of us do not want to marry in a church that doesn’t want us. If there is such a case as a couple wanting to force a church to do this, I will fight with you to stop it.
Oh my…Yes.. the same way churches are required to perform marriages for people who aren’t of their belief. The same way a Catholic Church has lost its right to deny performing a marriage for a Jewish couple.
And “special rights”? You mean the ones you get to enjoy but a select group of other people don’t? Isn’t that like the definition of “special rights”? One group gets them but nobody else does?
How come the GOP is always lambasted for discussing social issues?
Because the GOP’s discussion of social issues amounts to enforcing their view of morality on others, restricting your own freedom to make decisions.
In contrast, those who support same sex marriage aren’t seeking to force anyone to get gay married, they’re seeking to allow everyone equal access to civil marriage.
Nicely stated, I tip my hat to you.
Another lie.
And when the SCOTUS takes up Prop 8 next year and makes a decision…what then?
And what do you propose to do with all the gays and lesbians if you want to keep them out of society, I am dying to hear this…..
lol..no original thought? Gotta post the same nasty comment to every article concerning marriage equality?
Things that are really against the “institution of marriage and the integrity of the family” are divorce, adultery, poverty, illiteracy and ignorance. Mainers will rise in unison to vote out the injustices perpetrated against loving adult couples who wish to marry – regardless of sexual orientation.
It is nice to see that opponents are struggling to find donors that support discrimination. Hearts and minds are slowly changing. Just last weekend, I was at the American Legion with my partner, and we had an older woman approach us to explain that, after seeing us together, she was going to vote in favor of marriage equality. I almost fell off my stool I was so surprised. It was a heartwarming moment, and I hope more people continue to realize that we’re just other people, that want and deserve the same rights and opportunities as any other person.
/////
“If you are not in favor of civil mariage for same sex couples, then by all means, do not get one. However, you should not be able to vote on whether or not I am allowed civil protections under the law of the United States of America.”
Actually Jennifer C if you are not in favor of SSM you should vote NO and if it wasn’t your right to vote NO, you wouldn’t be asked to do so in the first place.
I am not in favor of a lot of things that I vote for. I am totally voting FOR same-sex-marriage! My hubby and I aren’t religious, and yet we have been happily married for 14 years. Perhaps the religious types should make their own SPECIAL category! It can be called ‘Traditional Marriage,’ and they can get the warm fuzzies knowing that they are oh-so-good!
There are quite a few things I don’t approve of or I just don’t like, but as long as no one is being hurt, what business is it of mine?
I wish we were still fighting the Cold War. People have forgotten what it’s like to be a Free American and what it’s like in the USSR….
The polls suggest that Maine polls more tolerant every year. Education does that to a population. It seems to me that only the people who make their money off the hate of others REALLY seem to like this fight. There are people born with both sexes; there are people born with 2 sets of DNA; gay people are going to exist whether you like them or not. Churches don’t have to marry straight couples, they aren’t going to have to marry gay ones. Oh, and invoking God isn’t working anymore. The sun doesn’t revolve around the earth, and people aren’t buying the ‘man rode dinosaurs’ story either.
Most Democrats I know are not in favor of gay marriage, but thats not to say that there are not individuals like Mike Michaud have their own reasons to support it.
How many Democrats do you actually know?
More than 2?
You’d be surprised how many conservative Democrats don’t like Obama, the thought of a mandated healthcare system, pro 2nd Amendment, opposed to the Quimby National Park and opposed to gay marriage.
But once again, this will go to the poles, and the voters will decide.
And more than likely, there will be another attempt on the following election, and on, and on….
The number of conservative Democrats is more than you think.
That is interesting, because I don’t know any Democrats that will vote for Romney, and I talk to lots of them. They are torn between Angus King and Matt Dunlap, but Obama and gay marriage are a given.
I never said I liked Rotten Romney-
I have contempt for any slimy politician that supports mandated healthcare, supports Quimby Land, or seeks to alter our rights under the 2nd Amendment.
You mean like they do with Sunday School?
105,000 people signed the petition to have this on the ballot. In such a small state as ours, that’s a sizable number.
I just do NOT understand why the fact that this might be law means that some people’s civil rights are being violated. NO ONE is forcing people to marry someone of the same gender. And NO CHURCH will be forced into this as well.
Maybe someone will sue a church to do it, but I’ll stand with those who oppose that. No church will and no church should ever be forced to perform a marriage if it goes against their teachings.
By the way, has NOM complied with the funding disclosure court order yet??
How exactly is everyone not equal? We all have the same exact rights. Tired of hearing words like minority thrown around. Why is everyone so caught up in labels? Why is a person of faith’s opinion considered any less valid then a person that believes they are the reason the sunshine’s? Everyone is entitled to believe what they want to believe that is the American way. Not saying that all supporters of SSM are believers of evolution instead of creation; but in my experience seems like the majority are. And for people who follow the FREE public school system that people like to pretend are “well educating” our children; you would think that they would stop forgetting about health class and how babies are made. Sure you can find plenty of people of the opposite sex unattractive, while perhaps finding your buddies to be very good looking. Sure you can find plenty of the opposite sex personalities to completely clash with your own, while your gal pals are the easiest to understand and more caring. Does this really conclude that you are not straight? Perhaps you are just picky? Maybe you had a less than ideal childhood and felt a certain resentment or longing for towards a parent that was never there for you and are now holding on or filling that void. Everyone is different. All of us have issues. We are all minorities in our own right. Again vote what you truly believe and what makes sense to you. Don’t feel pressured because your best friend or relative is gay to vote one way. Of course they are good people and you can still love them without going against what makes sense to you. People were meant to be loved and you were meant to be loved back. Friendship is a very beautiful thing. Family is an incredibly beautiful thing. So tired of hearing people disrespect their parents with saying traditional marriage is a thing of the past. If I don’t believe in something I certainly am not going to vote “well I feel strongly against it and don’t like it so I won’t do it, but I will okay it for others.” I love people to much to just stand back and watch them.
<3
:)
if gay marriage is allowed the same people who believe they should have all the rights to heterosexual marriage will not stop at the church doors. They will try to make it a hate crime to say anything against homosexuality including in the church. People need to take the blinders off. They are trying to push this into all areas of our lives whether we want it or not.
Sigh. Really? That is the argument now?
GodIsTrue I guess you were absent from Sunday School when they talked about the 9th Commandment.
You are just being paranoid. The KKK still says all of their hateful crap. They even sell stuff to members full of their hate, but do you see them being charged with hate speech. Nope.
Seriously, get over it, your religion is not being affected. Your protected under the 1st amendment and it’s not going anywhere. You should instead focus on doing what Christ instructed you to do. Go out an cloth and feed the homeless, help those who are sick. Perhaps even try loving your neighbor as yourself.
There are also plenty of other “sins” to correct. You could try for adultery, pre-marital sex, and many more that affect all couples or people.
Google First Scandal.
You are just being paranoid. The KKK still says all of their hateful crap. They even sell stuff to members full of their hate, but do you see them being charged with hate speech. Nope.
Seriously, get over it, your religion is not being affected. Your protected under the 1st amendment and it’s not going anywhere. You should instead focus on doing what Christ instructed you to do. Go out an cloth and feed the homeless, help those who are sick. Perhaps even try loving your neighbor as yourself.
There are also plenty of other “sins” to correct. You could try for adultery, pre-marital sex, and many more that affect all couples or people.