September 24, 2017
Augusta Latest News | Poll Questions | Hurricane Maria | Orion Krause | Obamacare

Comments for: Draft of Maine same-sex marriage question released

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):

  • No means No, we don’t want a law that allows gay marriage, nor do we want a law that dictates what a religion can or can’t; should or shouldn’t; will or won’t do. Writing a law that has to protect religion is in its self a violation of the Constitution.

    • Anonymous

      Does the state ever force Churches to marry interfaith couples or people who have previously been divorced? Why would it be different here?

      • Anonymous

        We lived in Dexter, when my husband, and I, got married, we had a very hard time, finding a minister to marry us, we’d been living together for a few years. We found a minster from the UU church in Sangerville. so no they don’t have to marry anyone they don’t want to.

        • Anonymous

          UU tends to be very liberal

          • Anonymous

            And your point is what?

          • Anonymous

            Apparently they do not use the same Bible

          • Anonymous

             Well what Bible do they use then? And what one do you use?

          • Anonymous

            Mostly King James, on ocassion NIV.  Maybe their’s is another translation, the Readers Digest Condensed Version.

          • Anonymous

            So which Bible translation does the UU use Bruce? I asked this once already of you.

          • Anonymous

            I know you did, and I said probably the condensed version because they tend to use the NIV, seems to be contrary to what the ones I have.

      • Anonymous

        Nope, they cannot— a church can refuse to marry anyone for any reason, that is protected by the first Amendment.

        • Anonymous

          Doesn’t mean they won’t try and force the issue. It will be another Liberal cause.

          • Tyke

             No it won’t.  There are still Churches that oppose interracial marriages and won’t perform them. When is the last time you saw “Liberals” trying to change that? 

            Oh yeah – NEVER!

            If the only argument you have is some made up impossible scare mongering “theory” that will never ever happen –  then you got nuthin.

          • Anonymous

            If it were, wouldn’t you think it would have happened with interracial marriage?

    • Anonymous

      Try using I statements.  “I don’t want a law…” because when you say “we” you try speaking for a lot of people (the Majority of Mainers) who do want or don’t care about same sex marriage.  And if you recall, it was the religious side of the argument that was accusing the pro-all marriage groups of coming up with a law that would force them to marry people, contrary to reality.  So here is a proposed mandate that would exempt those folks and you are arguing that would be unconstitutional as well…

    • Anonymous

      i want my gay friends to have the right to marry.

      • Anonymous

        I think everyone and anyone, should have the right to marry whomever they choose.

    • Guest

      /////

      • Anonymous

         And, never should “rules” that deal with RIGHTS be subjected to a popular vote.  NEVER!

    • Anonymous

      Yes, we DO want a law that allows gay marriage!

      This law doesn’t dictate what a religion can or can’t do. Churches will be able to refuse to marry anyone, for any reason, just as they are able to today.

    • Tyke

       Maine has voted on this a grand total of ONE time and it is only right that we get at least as many tries as TABOR, the Son of TABOR, the son of the son of TABOR and the return of the son of the son of TABOR.

      It’s call Democracy. Why do you have a problem with Democracy?

    • Joseph Willingham

      The law makes it clear to those who don’t understand the constitution.

      The law makes it clear so that when the anti-gay lobby starts their lies about how this will force churches to perform same-sex marriage, people can show that it will not.

  • Anonymous

    Simple language, that’s probably best. Let’s hope NOM et all don’t lie this time around again. The state can’t force a church to marry people — notice how they don’t force churches to marry people who have previously been divorced for example? The state can step in and stop discrimination, like refusing to serve someone because he happens to be/you perceive him to be gay. That’s already the law though, that’s already illegal. Gay marriage wouldn’t change that.

    • ChuckGG

      I’m still going back and forth on the wording.  I understand the petition wording.  The part about protecting religious freedom is redundant – we all know that.   Well, that’s the problem – we don’t ALL know that.  90% of the battle on this issue is the mistaken belief by many that churches will somehow be forced to marry gay couples.  It never could happen because of the First Amendment and I would like to say most people know that, but I’m not sure they do.  From what we have seen, apparently they don’t understand.

      The really religious crowd isn’t going to believe or even comprehend the legalities of it all.  If they did, we would not have to rehash this argument time and again.  I hate to say it but they don’t “get it” and they are not going to “get it.”

      So, where does that leave us?

      I like the simplicity of the proposed wording but the uneducated will presume this means forced church weddings.  Perhaps, something like this?

      “Do you favor a law allowing same-sex couples to obtain marriage licenses and be married in a civil ceremony?”  

      Since a religious ceremony in itself is purely ceremonial, having it or not, is irrelevant, legally, to the State.  The clergyman would be acting as an agent of the State and thus would be performing the “civil” part of a wedding ceremony just by default, which really is what goes on in straight weddings.  (Oh, I can hear the bemoaning now!  “Our marriage is blessed by the holy mother grand poobah, and on an on.”  Well, that might be, but it also is being recognized by the State which is all any of this has to do with.)

      Another approach would be to remove the restriction in the law, such as:

      “Do you favor the removal of the same-sex restriction from the current marriage law?”

      Probably too vague.

      Well, I frankly don’t know.  It’s obvious to us, but I’m doubt it addresses the concerns of the religious crowd who still are trying to untwist their knickers.

      My favorite bumper sticker:  “Jesus, save me from your followers.”

      • Guest

        ” WE” get it. Stop trying to sound superior. “You people” don’t get it. “WE” love Jesus and you- by the way- but know that how you live is wrong. 

        • Guest

          //////

          • Guest

             And you stop telling me I have to accept gay marriage, because I don’t. Pass the law and I still won’t. It’s that simple. Even if you manage to win in November, you won’t ever be accepted. You people are all ridiculous, and quite frankly, I’m tired of arguing about it. We will see in November.

          • Joseph Willingham

            You don’t have to accept it.  

            The fact that we don’t stop everything we don’t like from happening or existing doesn’t mean that we accept it. 

            There are things I see all the time that I don’t like or want to see, but does that mean that I should help make it illegal?  It happens, it doesn’t affect me, I live MY life, and they live their life.

            Ironic that after all your ranting, you call US ridiculous….

          • Joseph Willingham

            And it’s the INTERPRETATION of that book that he chooses to believe, too…

        •  You don’t know how they live is wrong, you have faith that what you believe is right, but you do not know.

          “You know nothing Jon Snow.” – George R.R. Martin

          • Anonymous

            It seems these days so many try to justify the wrongs in life by giving it a new name. Everyone worries they might offend or be thought rude if they stand up against these wrongs that are being shoved in everyone’s face, under the umbrella of equality. If one tells a lie, he/she is a liar, no, they are not a liar, they just stretched the truth, do not offend them by calling them a liar, how dare you.  If someone murders, they are a murderer, are they not or are they just a sad victim of circumstance or born that way and the death penalty is so very hard and cruel. If one steals, are they a thief or should the item not have been there to tempt them?  They have a drug problem so lets set up many centers and feed them their drugs because we cannot make them struggle to get off drugs because that is just to heartless to make someone dig deep within themselves and conquer a drug habit without handing them their poison, that would just be so cruel.
            Right and wrong, need to exist. The world is in a sad state of affairs due to everyone trying to make their wrong ok and trying to change the constitution to fit what they want it to fit…. America, one nation under God…….The bible stands where we need to stand, and that is for what is right! 
            If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.  Plus, there are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among  Now lets change that all around to fit where you want it and make it work for the cause. People need to stand up and stop the corrosion of human decency and morals. Where does it end?

          • Not only have you not given a single reason why SSM is in any way shape or form wrong, you have further proven my point. You have faith that the Bible is the “the way,” but you do not know that it is. The best part about equality is that homosexuals will get to marry and you will still be able to have your faith.

            Here is what I know, and I know it because unlike the Bible, I can prove it. The last time humanity allowed the Bible to rule man, we called it the Dark Ages. I would not have humanity repeat the mistakes of its past.

            Christians can have all the faith they want that the Bible is “the way” and that God is looking out for them. They won’t KNOW it however until they take the lighting rods off the steeples of their churches and stop looking both ways before they cross the street.

          • Anonymous

            This comment reflects bigotry against Christianity.

          • Tyke

             Actually many churches support gay marriage and want the right to marry their gay parishioners.

            Not letting them do that is being bigoted against Christianity too.

          • Joseph Willingham

            Why do you say that?  What about this comment do you think makes it reflect bigotry?

          • Anonymous

            Please demonstrate how the posters comments are “bigotry against Christians”? Please be specific with your examples.

          • Anonymous

            Exactly, when will this corrosion of human decency end and people will stop trying to dictate the moral code and spiritual belief systems that others should live by. When will religious zealots do the decency thing and stop trying to force people to live by Christian beliefs in the land of individual freedom, even if they are not Christian? And when will they stop saying horrid and untruthful things about God’s beautiful children who have been made in God’s image? 

            I agree, it’s a shame that some Christian zealots have allowed the understanding of human decency corrode.

          • Anonymous

            “This is my commandment that ye love one another that your joy may be filled.”
            Jesus Christ

          • Washington County

             The second coming

        • ChuckGG

          If Jesus had anything to do with secular marriage, you might have a point.

          But, you have just proven my point.

        • Tyke

           So you want a law that forbids all Christians from marrying non Christians too?

        • Anonymous

          Last I knew that was up to Jesus to decide. 

        • Anonymous

          To quote Ghandi, “I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ.”

      • Anonymous

        holy mother grand poobah!! Hahahahaha thank you for the afternoon chuckle I needed that! :)

        • ChuckGG

          I really should be more sensitive to the handi- er, ah, religious types but it is difficult to do.  I feel like I am trying to explain quantum mechanics to Scooby Doo.

          Seriously, they have their beliefs and they are entitled to them, but not at the expense of the rest of us.  It’s just that simple.

          But, they are convinced.  I guess that is the definition of “blind faith.”  I recall having a discussion with a 50ish female Catholic friend of mine from high school.  After explaining the whole shooting match to her about SSM and how I would be happy with a state-issued marriage license and a civil ceremony, she paused, looked at me, and asked, “Don’t you want your marriage blessed by the Holy Mother Mary Virgin something-or-other?”

          Not only did I not particularly care about some blessing, I had no idea what she was talking about.  She presumes that the whole world thinks like she does and, well, this is a given fact that the HMMVSoO blessing is a requirement for marriage.  She later explained to me – and she was dead serious about this – that her religion “is the only TRUE religion.”

          I mean, she really believes this!  Apparently, the other 4/5ths of the planet is going to burn in Hell or something.  As I have said many times before, you can’t mix logic and religion.  All is does is give the logical person a migraine.

          •  Being a ginger I don’t have a soul to worry about, so I really don’t even have a horse in the race. Still it is fun to get under the Christian collar, they do so hate it when you point out their hypocrisy.

          • ChuckGG

            Okay, excuse my ignorance – “ginger?”

            Thanks for the comments, BTW!

          •  This may clear it up for you..

            http://www.noob.us/humor/south-park-ginger-kids/

          • ChuckGG

            Oh, that is too funny!  I had it partly correct.  I got the red hair part, I guessed, but then mixed with the whole absence of a soul thing (and unaware of Cartman’s speech), I found a sub-group of Jewish people who have red hair and light skin.  I was reading more into it than warranted.

            Oddly, my comment asking you about what “ginger” meant was “removed.”  Wonder why?  Very strange.

          • Anonymous

            More bigotry against Christianity.

            Please read the rules about posting on this forum.

          • ChuckGG

            Pales in comparison to what I have heard.

          • Tyke

             Please learn the meaning of those rules.

          • Anonymous

            And your posting are within the rules how?

          • Joseph Willingham

            That, my friends, is IRONY!  

          • Joseph Willingham

            But please remember that not all Christians are like that.  We need to be careful to make that clear, otherwise our comments regarding religion will be twisted.  Of course, they probably will be any way…

          • ChuckGG

            Of course, you are correct.  I truly should try to be more “Christian” then some of the posters have been.  I must admit that back in 2009 when SSM was enacted in the Maine legislature and signed into law by the Governor, and then the beginnings of the People’s Veto came about, I had no idea there would be such vitriol about a subject that, to me, seemed like a long overdue correction to the law – sort of like inter-racial marriage, making divorce legal, women getting the right to vote, and so on.  This was an item whose time had come.

            I knew we would get some pushback from the churches because anything that is outside of their very narrow definition of normal is, of course, a sin, punishable by Eternal Damnation in the Fires of Hell for All Eternity, Amen.  [Insert eye-rolling here.]

            But, I no more expected this level of pushback than I did an attack from the Belgian Navy.

            To me, the churches don’t have a dog in this fight and legally they do not.  That is as plain as day.  This always has been about the secular side of marriage and the removal of the same-gender restriction in the law.  The law has nothing to do with churches and churches have nothing to do with law.  Their marriages are ceremonial in nature and carry no weight in court without a state-issued marriage license.  I always thought of that whole group as kind of like cricket teams – there, mildly interesting, but of no particular concern, unless you happened to be interested in cricket.  Fairly innocuous.

            When we received all this backlash, I frankly was surprised it was even listened to.  It just seems like a component of an issue we should not have to be dealing with since it is unrelated to the situation.  No matter how many times you try to explain the law to some people, they just don’t get it, and likely never will get it.

            I continue to ask for a valid reason against SSM that does not involve religion, and I get silence.  So far, here are the attempts:

            1.  Religion – that argument has been dropped by the opposition, mostly, as the general public no longer considers SSM a threat to religion.

            2.  Danger to children – Countless gay families have come forward.  That argument seems to be dead.

            3.  Won’t achieve our goals – this is the latest approach.  This is a mask for the religious arguments against SSM. We should not pass SSM at the State level because we won’t achieve our goals (we are being told what we should do to succeed) as State marriage is only good at the State-level and not at the Federal.   Of course, this is hogwash.  It is a state-by-state effort until SCOTUS comes in and takes a Prop-8-like case for equal protection and then the whole anti-SSM issue collapses.  Until DOMA, marriage was not a Federal issue.  With DADT dead and DOMA heading toward the dustbin of history, we are seeing progress.

            As usual, I have rambled on too long.  But, yes, I should be more patient with the religious crowd.  Many have been very supportive.  Many have not.

      • Dana Andrews

        I agree.  The wording might be too simple this time around.  I read in the Portland Press Herald that you can send comments about the wording to sos.office@maine.gov 

  • Anonymous

    The question should be worded simply and to the point. ” are you in favor of homosexual marriage becoming legal in Maine? “

    • Anonymous

      civil marriage is not a sentient being, it is a legal contract. There can be no sexual orientation attached to marriage.

      • ChuckGG

        Very good legal point, and I missed it!  Quite correct. 

    • Joseph Willingham

      As your side has made it clear, homosexual marry right now.

      To be clear and simple, the phrase “same-sex couples” needs to be part of it.  That will let the voter know that we’re talking about two people of the same sex marrying.  See how fun English can be?

  • Anonymous

    It’s like deja-vu all over again.

    • Anonymous

      no kidding! how many times do we need to vote on this before it get’s put to rest. Maine has said no numerous times and they keep pushing. It’s like if we keep going we’ll ware them down eventually….

      •  Simple, they will keep bringing it up until it passes. To a Liberal, NO! never means no, just ‘not today, try again.’

        • ChuckGG

          Yes, we tend to be that way with civil rights.

        • Joseph Willingham

          And Conservatives just stop dead when they’re told no?  I think that the abortion issue is a good example of an issue being settled but the Conservatives try and try again….

      • Guest

        /////

        • Awesome, just awesome. Is it just old and stubborn, or is there a little bit of that cranky old man too? For instance, have you ever said, “You kids get off my lawn!” Seriously though, it is awesome that you have an open mind, and are willing to stand up for the rights of others.

          • Guest

            ////

      • Anonymous

        Well if you don’t like it, get the law changed. In Maine we have a referendum meaning that if you get the signatures you can get it on the ballot. Its our political system as work. 

      • ChuckGG

        I believe that would be ONE other time you voted on this and it was to rescind the law passed by the legislature (that you elected) and signed into law by the Governor (who you elected) and who, by you electing them, was acting in your best interests, even though you may have disagreed.  It’s called a representative government.  The People’s Veto defeats the concept of a representative government and turns it into a simply majority vote government.

        With that concept, the public can vote for all kinds of new expenditures and vote down all taxes and bond revenues.  I am not against the People’s Veto concept but it should be a 2/3rds majority vote.

        I feel this way regardless of the issue.  If you don’t like the way the legislators voted, then vote them out the next time around.  Reserve the People’s Veto for something important.

      • Anonymous

         No one should be voting on this at all  … period!  Rights are rights, not subject to the whims of people with closed minds.

        • ChuckGG

          I agree, but I feel like the guy who missed the Express bus.  Now, he has to wait for the Local.  It will take longer, but we’ll get there – eventually.

        • Anonymous

          I guess God has a closed mind.

          • ChuckGG

            Just those who claim to speak for Him.

          • Anonymous

            God condemns rape, not love. There’s nothing sinful about a gay couple affirming their monogamous, supportive relationship.

      • Anonymous

        Rogue specifically “how many times”has Maine voted on this? In your answer please list the month and years of votes.

        I will even help you with one date November 2009.

        Now you need to list the other dates.

        • Joseph Willingham

          And they never ever do.  They never even acknowledge their mistake, but they let it continue…

      • Anonymous

        How many times? At least more than once.

        I will continue to fight for my equal treatment under the law. Extending civil marriage to same sex couples is the right thing to do.

      • Anonymous

        Maine has voted on gay marriage ONCE.  Not twice, not three times, ONCE. ONE TIME. So knock it off with the right wing BS about it repeatedly being voted on.

      • Joseph Willingham

        Momma, you do know, of course, that the one time that the people said no on this (by saying yes, actually) does not mean that it’s been on the ballot “numerous times.”

  • ptkitty

    “Do you want to allow same-sex couples to marry?”    ABSOLUTELY NOT!!   We’re told that the “polls” say we’re headed that way…the polls are wrong.  Most Mainers still do not accept gay marriage.
     

    • Anonymous

      I do.

    • I am for it because I am for equality. Special rights should not be allowed, and in this particular case heterosexuals have rights that homosexual people do not, therefore heterosexuals have special rights, and that’s just wrong.

      • Anonymous

        You talk about special rights they will have ok than handycap people have special rights like parking spaces  that no one else can park in now thats a special right 

        • Really, that’s the best you have? Ok, handicap parking is an accommodation we as a society have given to those who can not get around as easily as non-handicapped members of our society in order to give them equal access to places. It is no different than having someone read a ballot question to someone who cannot read so they can exercise their right to vote.

          • Anonymous

            That is a special right

          • Tyke

             Feel free to shoot off one of your feet and you can have that “right” too.

          • Guest

            ….

        • Tyke

           You are equating being a heterosexual with being handicapped?

          Hmmmm

        • Joseph Willingham

          Special rights are letting one group of people do something that another group cannot.

          • Anonymous

            Yes you are right

      • Anonymous

         We’re not talking about someone who was born black, or brown or red or was born with a handicap or had an accident or illness that could limit them. We are talking about people who want to have ‘special’ treatment because the choose the gay lifestyle.

        • Joseph Willingham

          How about the special rights for people who choose a religion?

    • Anonymous

      Apparently you and I know different Mainers. Most mainers I know support this. 

    • Anonymous

      Do you know “most Mainers”?  Have you asked “most Mainers”?    I suspect you’re going by the people you know, who are, not surprisingly, just like you.  I, on the other hand, would go by the people I know and talk to about this and not surprisingly, they agree with me that it should be allowed.  The biggest difference between you and me?  I don’t pretend to speak for “most Mainers”, just for myself.

    • Anonymous

      Hmm most of the Mainers I know are all for it!

    • Guest

      /////

    • Anonymous

      Your ignorance is showing. Stop hating people.

      • atruebluedowneaster

        Because someone disagrees  doesn’t mean they hate, it means they don’t agree with someone else opinion!  Stop twisting it!

        • Anonymous

          Disagreeing with someone’s personal opinions is one thing. We have the right to disagree in this country. Actively trying to deny a right that should be afforded to all citizens is, in my opinion, a form of hatred. You are welcome to disagree with me all you want, but it doesn’t change my opinion one bit.

          • atruebluedowneaster

            You are entitled to your opinion but disagreeing is not hating and your still twisting the point! 

          • Anonymous

            They seem to be always twisting disagreeing with hatred. IT is an excuse they use to sway people

          • Anonymous

            afterall, Homophobia IS the last form of hatred sanctioned by the Supreme Court.

          • Tyke

             Society will come up with a new one.

            Nature abhors a vacuum and there are a lot of empty heads needing to hate.

        • Joseph Willingham

          You are correct.  However, I hope that you condemn those on here who actually display hatred against gay people, such as people who tell us we should die, that AIDS is our fault, that we are no better then pedophiles.  That is hate and not just simple disagreement with same-sex marriage.

    • Anonymous

      Had same sex marriage been available in Georgia, Newt Gingrich would likely be on his fifth or sixth marriage!  What better “proof” do we need that same sex marriage is a threat to heterosexual marriage!! 

      • Anonymous

        There is no threat as you say . Tell all of us how will you an others be threaten  ?

        • Anonymous

               I am making sport of the fools who oppose same sex marriage, such as Gingrich.  Note my use of quotation marks around the word proof.
               Those who claim that same sex marriage threatens the institution seem to have no problem with divorce after divorce.  
                I am a proud champion of same sex marriage.  No person’s liberty is a threat to my liberty.

    • Anonymous

      You don’t have to accept gay marriage.  You just have to leave them alone!  They arn’t going to ask to borrow your bed you know.

      • Tyke

        Some folks who post on this seems to see gays under their beds and behind every bush (cough-cough tomuchbs).

    • Anonymous

       You certainly DON’T speak for this Mainer.  BTW, were you “Darkcat33” in another life?

    • Joseph Willingham

      So you know so many Mainers across the state, from Downeast to Saco, Ft. Kent to Camden,  and across all ages and incomes, etc. that you feel that you have a better idea of what people in our state than these professional polling agencies that have years of experience on how to poll and interpret the data?  

  • Anonymous

    Good.  Keep the wording simple. 

    Thank you, Mr. Summers, for not accepting the sham language that purports to protect religious liberty, but only does so regarding the conduct of the marriage ceremony.  It doesn’t protect the religious liberty of those who want to practice their religious liberty in the conduct of their business (e.g. caterers, photographers, etc. – see case recently determined by a New Mexico appeals court.

    • Anonymous

      As they shouldn’t. Why protect discrimination? What’s the difference between a photographer refusing to do business with a gay couple and refusing with an interracial couple? Both base their opinions on what they believe is “right.”

      • Anonymous

        And in both cases, they have the right to refuse.

        • Anonymous

          They don’t, not in Maine. That’s regardless of whether gay people can be married.

          •  Try making that stick!

          • Tyke

             The Maine Human Rights Commission has already done so.

            http://www.maine.gov/mhrc/investigation/rg/index.htm

            btw: they will also protect the rights of churches when gay marriage become legal

          • Anonymous

             LD 1196, “An Act to Extend Civil Rights Protections to All People
            Regardless of Sexual Orientation”, passed by the Legislature and signed
            by the Governor in the spring of 2005. The law went into effect December
            28, 2005

          •  Okay, I’ll say it again: Try making that stick!

          • Anonymous

            Making what “stick”.

      • Anonymous

        Until you abolish the prohibition clause of the first amendment, American citizens should be allowed to exercise their religion in the framework of their daily lives, not only on Sundays.  

        Requiring the NM couple to photograph the “wedding” cermony is a clear violation of the prohibition clause.  They are not being allowed to exercise their religious beliefs freely. 

        • Anonymous

          But that has nothing to do with marriage for gay couples. It’s already illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexuality. That’s the law in Maine.

          Your argument isn’t about a freedom of religion. If you have a business that is open to the public, you have to serve the public. That’s not exercising religious freedoms. If you want to be able to discriminate, operate in private. Otherwise you can just use religion as an excuse for anything. I want to smoke weed and my religion says that’s okay. I’m against interracial relationships (they used God as a reason to oppose interracial marriage in the 60s FYI) because God says it’s wrong and so I won’t serve interracial couples. Have those beliefs all you want, but when you’re in the public sphere, you can’t discriminate in these ways.

        • ChuckGG

          Not quite.  Look up “public accommodation.”  This is like the situation of blacks being refused service at an “all white” lunch counter.  If a business is open to the public, it must serve all the public, and cannot discriminate based upon sexual orientation.

          I would argue the same is true about renting out church halls and such.  If the church wishes to stick its toes into the secular world for the purposes of profit, then it must comply with the law.  If it does not wish to comply, the solution is simple – stay out of the secular world.

          I lived through the 1960’s.  It’s like I’m watching a rerun of the KKK justifications against blacks.  The same stupid arguments.  It is just bizarre.

        • Anonymous

          Sorry dirigodad your wrong. Any company that provides services to the public needs to provide those services period end of story. They cannot pick and choose who or what they want to serve. What if they disliked blacks or Jews…should they be allowed to say “no” to them?

        • Tyke

          My church supports gay marriage and wants the right to marry our gay parishioners.

          Why do you claim your religion trumps all others?

          How unAmerican!

          • ChuckGG

            Because I’ve been told, by them, that their religion, “is the only TRUE religion.”

            Seriously, they have told me that.

            Maybe it’s me, but that seems just a touch presumptuous coming from a mere mortal.

    • Anonymous

      dirigodad in Maine it is already illegal to discriminate in public accommodations (i.e. caterers, photographers, etc…). This law will not change that fact one way or another.

    • Joseph Willingham

      The line of thought that you seem to be following sounds like the current idea that everyone in the country should be allowed to deny service to people who they don’t approve of because of religious reasons.  That is anarchy.  That will allow people to refuse service for so many reasons besides homosexualty-the customer or citizen is unmarried, the “wrong” gender, a different race, too old or too young, or even of a different religion.  Do we want to go into a shop or a government office and be judged by every single person and hope to pass, otherwise we don’t get service?

      As it stands right now, what you have given as examples has nothing to do with allowing a same-sex couple to obtain a marriage license.  There are currently laws that address discrimination based on actual or perceived sexual orientation.  Because of that, your statement that the language we want is a sham is incorrect.  It’s a shame to state that people should be allowed to discriminate in a non-religious setting and it’s a real sham to not acknowledge that the law already prohibits discrimination.

  • Anonymous

    When is Charlie Summers going to resign that job?  Conflict of interest, now that he is a nominated candidate . . .

    • Anonymous

      Like judge Walker conflict of interest?

      • ChuckGG

        And, had he been straight and found Prop-8 to be constitutional, would that have been a conflict of interest?  I give judges the benefit of the doubt for being professional, especially at that level.

        Have you read the court transcripts?  I cannot imagine after reading those that even you would find in favor of Prop-8.

      • Anonymous

        Any human judge would have the same conflict as Walker — homosexual, heterosexual, aesexual, we all have a personal stake in marriage as a civil institution.

        Charlie Summers is currently the Secretary of State.  That office oversees elections.  He is now a candidate in the next general election.  QED, conflict of interest.

      • Tyke

         Hey! I have an idea … let’s change the subject away from Charlie Summers unethical behavior!!!

        Wôôt!

      • Anonymous

        Prove that his sexual orientation had ANY influence on his ruling that has not been upheld TWICE.

  • Keep it simple and no means no. I am sure Fred Karger will be roaming the State for support before it’s all over but his input will only be appreciated in small pockets of gay rights advocates. I wish the gays well within a civil union structure, but not for same sex marriage.

    • Tyke

       Riiiight: “small pockets of gay rights advocates” = about 48% of voters a few years ago and over 50% per recent polls.

  • Anonymous

    Actually homosexual relationships take place all over nature. 

    • Anonymous

      Actually no they don’t, not in a lustful manor anyway, and since when do we get our morals from what animals do? My dog does things I would never dream of doing.

      • Anonymous

        Dolphins have been known to have homosexual sex for pleasure. We are animals you know that right? We have just become smarter then all the rest. Also my dog loves unconditionally, now matter what the other person has done. He doesn’t judge, he does care if you are gay, Islam, or christian. He will love you and watch out for you. So yes maybe we should get our morals from animals, because animals do not kill people because they have a different religion. 

        • Anonymous

          Then I guess you would believe in marriage between an animal and human. And before the excuse they can sign something, there are still people that can not right.

          • Anonymous

            bruce why do you persist in posting red herring arguments?

            Animals do not have conscious thought, they cannot give informed consent, they cannot read a contract, they cannot sign a contract and no court in the land would enforce the contract for any one of the listed reasons.

          • Anonymous

            That is stupid. No I do not believe it in. And if a person does not know what they are signing or not capable  then it is already illegal. 

      • Anonymous

        You can talk to the animals now cp444?

  • Guest

    Less government huh? …. funny how those who cry about less
    government are all about government controlling what they believe is immoral?
    That is so amusingly twisted.  

  • Anonymous

    I am a heterosexual male, been married to the same great girl for 30 years, and I’m as straight as the day is long.

    I will enthusiastically be voting in support of gay marriage.

    I do not feel that gay marriage is a threat to my or anyone elses marriage.
    I do not feel that it lessens the legitimacy of my or anyone elses marriage.
    I do not feel that it lowers our collective values or morals when gay people marry.
    And I haven’t heard a cogent, rational argument as to why gay marriage shouldn’t be legal.

    We as Americans embrace principles that are summed up in a few well known phrases:

    “Equal protection under the law”
    “Life, liberty, and the pusuit of happiness.”
    “And Justice for All”
    “From many, One”

    Are we really a nation that embraces these ideals, or simply a nation of hypocrites, where we love spouting all these high-sounding, lofty values while denying them to millions of our fellow citizens?

    We shall soon see.

    •  Infinite amount of likes.

      • Anonymous

        Ditto! Wish there was an “I love this post” button!

    • Tyke

       Yup – I’ve been married to the most wonderful woman in the world for over 50 years and since I against special rights for just some folks I’m voting to extend those special rights that heterosexuals have to get married to my gay Brethren.

      marriage equality for all!

    • Anonymous

      If this question is passed it essentially forces Churcches to marry, that is not Equal Protection and it is Unconstitutional.

      • Tyke

         The US Constitution assures that no church will be forced to marry gays, express support for the marriage of gays or even stop preaching that gay relationships (including marriage) are wrong/sinful.

        A state law cannot override the US Constitution and making gay marriage legal will no more force any church to marry anyone they don’t want to than making interfaith marriage legal has forced the Catholic Church to marry those of other faiths.

        It. Can”t. Happen.

        Please learn a little about our constitution. It is a truly  great document!

        • Anonymous

          I know very well, that does not mean they can not try, one step at a time.

          • Anonymous

            And people can try suing dry cleaners for $6 million when they lose pants. What’s your point, except people bring frivolous lawsuits that have no merit all the time?

          • Anonymous

            The point is what is next on the Liberal Agenda.

          • Anonymous

            Don’t know but since you seem to see “liberals” hiding behind every bush why don’t you tell us?

          • Anonymous

            Two more conflicts in the Middle East. By the way they are not hiding under a bush, they are very upfront.

          • Anonymous

            The next two items on the liberal “agenda” is two more conflicts in the Middle East? Where do I go to find that info?

          • Anonymous

            You have not been watching the Middle East and if Obama gets back in it will get worse. Now we see he is letting the flood gates open to illegal immigration for what 800,000. Another election year ploy.

          • Anonymous

            That’s right Bruce I never stay up on current events. Way off topic but at least you didn’t bring up domestic animals or children in your response.

          • Joseph Willingham

            Maybe we haven’t been watching the same news source as you, which is not to say that we haven’t been watching the Middle East.

          • Anonymous

            Your point is baseless fear mongering, then. There’s no possibility that this would come to pass, churches are protected by our First Amendment to the US Constitution.

      • Anonymous

        “If this question is passed it essentially forces Churcches to marry, that is not Equal Protection and it is Unconstitutional.”No that is a lie. No church can be forced to marry anyone they do not wish to marry.

    • Anonymous

      Not a threat. How about when our children are forced to have an attitude of acceptance for a lifestyle we are teaching them is wrong. How about when our churches (though they may not at first  have to marry gay couples) would have to allow them to participate in the decisions of the church. How about if we can’t say no to them teaching homosexuality to our children in school or even in our churches for fear of or be fined, sued or thrown in jail for it. It is a danger. It is a threat. And you are a fool if you think its not.

      • Anonymous

        GodIsTrue didn’t God give Moses 10 Rules on Tablets? Wasn’t one of the rules about giving false testimony?”How about when our children are forced to have an attitude of acceptance for a lifestyle we are teaching them is wrong.”

        False Testimony…in other words a LIE. It was said last time and the anti-SSM said it was a LIE after the election was help in 2009. So the anti-SSM crowd admitted that it was a LIE then, will you now?
        ~~~~~
        “How about when our churches (though they may not at first  have to marry gay couples) would have to allow them to participate in the decisions of the church.”

        False Testimony…in other words ANOTHER LIE. No where in the United States where SSM has been legalized has any church been forced to accept any homosexual person they do not wish to accept. No where in the United States where SSM has been legalized has any church been forced to marry an homosexual couple they do not wish to marry. Those are facts and truths.
        ~~~~~
        “How about if we can’t say no to them teaching homosexuality to our children in school or even in our churches for fear of or be fined, sued or thrown in jail for it.

        And we continue to give False Testimony…in other words MORE LIES. This law does not change church curriculum…it does not FORCE any church to do anything that goes against its teachings. Those are FACTS and TRUTHS
        ~~~~~
        “It is a danger. It is a threat. And you are a fool if you think its not.”

        It is FALSE TESTIMONY. It is a LIE. So why are you casting stones when you are with out SIN?

        • Anonymous

           there were more than 10 commandments in the old testament. There were many other commandments besides those. One is in Lev 20:13  “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination”. Your the Liar.

          • Anonymous

             Excuse me “GodIsTrue”…but do you follow all the rules and laws in Leviticus or just those that you agree with?

            And everything in your post was untrue and misinformation. There was not ONE truthful statement in the whole post.

            So please…do YOU follow ALL the rules and laws of Leviticus?

          • Anonymous

            And you must be a hypocrite, if you only care about old testament rules you have no inclination to break.

  • Anonymous

    I’m straight, Christian, firm believer in the Civil Rights of others…Pretty much what you would call the Churches and Conservatives definition of “Immoral” (other than being straight of course).  What right is it YOURS and “We’s”  to tell others what they can and cannot do in their lives?

    • Anonymous

      You have no clue what God has commanded of His people.  Life is full of tough  choices, we cannot put what we want before what God wants.  Love the homosexual person, love the thief, love the child molester, love the tax evader, but never, never accept their behavior.

      • Tyke

         Why are you besmirching behavior caused by God’s own design?

      •  Lets put that love the sinner hate the sin thing to the test. Since its inception the Papacy has had approx. 50 million people put to death for heresy. Kinda sounds like they hate the sinner too…

  • Anonymous

    Live and Let Live…. 

  • Homosexuals have just as much right to be in a miserable marriage as heterosexuals do!

  • Anonymous

    It is so sad that there is still so much bigotry, ignorance,
    prejudice and phobia in this country.. and this State. What a difference the
    world would be if closed minded people would not be so judgmental.  Live and let live.. remember we are all
    equals among equals.   It shouldn’t even
    be a question whether LGBT’s are allowed to marry or not.  People should not have a say over who is
    allowed to love and devote their lives to each other through matrimony and who
    isn’t.  How egotistical of anyone to
    think otherwise.

    • Anonymous

      Should a bi-sexual be allowed to marry one of each? He/she needs to be happy whatever his/her mood might be that particular day.

      • Anonymous

        Maybe…None of my business.  Solomon had 700 wives! Also none of my business.  What a glorious world we would live in if everyone just minded their own business, stayed out of other’s and knew the difference between the two.

      • Tyke

         Please give us a link to any one of the other countries or states where gay marriage is legal that have also allowed plural marriage?

        Oh wait, that was just a red herring, wasn’t it?

      • Anonymous

        If you can’t argue against gay marriage without bringing up polygamy, you have no argument against gay marriage.

      • Anonymous

        Last time I checked a bi-sexual person was only allowed to marry one person and that person had to be a person of the opposite sex. This law will only change that ratio in one way. A bi-sexual person would then be allowed to marry a person of the same sex but only one at a time.

    • Anonymous

      To disagree because of belief’s is not hatred, nor ignorance or a phobia. That is just an excuse to incite others.

  • Anonymous

    The Church had a powerful moment they could have taken advantage of. They could have said that they supported gay marriage, they support there fellow man. It was not up to them to judge whether god will approve or disapprove. They had a change to say, we don’t believe in your life style, but what we believe in is your love, compassion, caring and faith in the lord. We will marry gay couples, and if god has a problem with it then he will take it up with those couples, we will not look at the sin we think it is because we all sin, we all live sinful lives. We are going to look at the love and faith. They had a chance to focus on love, compassion, and caring.

    • Tyke

       Many churches support gay marriage.

      In fact not allowing them to marry their gay parishioners is restricting their religious freedom!

      • Anonymous

        Then they are not Christian Churches according to the Bible.

        • Tyke

          YOUR interpretation of the Bible. Not all religious leaders and scholars agree with your OPINION.

          Why do you claim your version of Christianity ois better than all others?

          That is decidedly UnAmerican!~

          • Anonymous

            It is also decidedly UnChristian!~

          • Anonymous

            Christianity is not an opinion but a theology, as are other non-Christian denominations. 

            It is totally American to choose any religion that matches your beliefs (as opposed to your opinion) or to choose no religion at all opting instead for an opinion. 

            Further, despite your opinion, brucefl56’s statement that  “Then they are not Christian Churches according to the Bible.” is a non-judgemental, non-superior statement, core to Christian theology.

            Opinion and belief are not synonymously defined.

          • Tyke

            Bull

            There as many interpretations of the scripture as there are different Christian Churches in the world and there are MANY.

            Those interpretations are the opinions of the humans who make them. Pretending otherwise does not change that fact.

          • Anonymous

            Are we to assume that should any given  congregation of worshipers unanimously have long ago chosen and practiced a theology based upon a OM/OW definition of marriage that your opinion is they share opinion rather than theology?  

            If you demanded that they change their theological belief in OM/OW just so you could join their congregation, in fairness can you concede that the congregation just might feel disrespected if they knew their belief as theology?

          • Anonymous

            No one is demanding that anyone  allow anyone else into congregations. This is about civil marriage, which has no religious requirements— even atheists are allowed to marry.

          • Anonymous

            Not my interpretation, it is plan language. It also talks about False Prophets, beware.

        •  And youR Christian church is not the right one according to the Muslims, and you are both wrong according to the Hindu’s, and then the Buddhists have their opinions as well. Not to mention the Wiccan’s think you are all nuts. You have no idea if you are right or not, you may have faith that you are right, but you do not know.

          • Anonymous

            Of course I know, and by the majority of our forefathers, most should know. Not that we still should burn witches.

        • Anonymous

          Funny, one of the commandments is tho shall not kill, yet we have the death penalty.

          • Anonymous

            As with that issue and any other, I am not the Judge. Since you said Thou shall not kill, look at abortion. Right those are just fetuses; that is the excuse they use.

          • Anonymous

            The original texts use the word for murder instead of kill.

    • Anonymous

      If they believe the Bible is God’s word they can not support it. They don’t judge it (most Christians), just saying what Jesus said. You can care for someone without someone saying ytou hate them.

      •  If it weren’t for a gay man, the masses would have no idea what your god’s word is.

      • Anonymous

        God condemns rape, not love.

        • Anonymous

          He also comdemns beastiality and and man laying with man, actually calls it an abomination. (not my words, His)

          • Anonymous

            Also abominations, according to the bible:
            eating shellfish
            eating pork
            eating anything more than 3 days old
            wearing mixed fabrics
            working on the weekend
            being arrogant
            divorce
            women wearing pants

            You are a hypocrite if you only care about the old testament abominations you have no problem avoiding.

          • Anonymous

            Nope, I read the whole BIble, I was stating that point it said. you also best check which ones are abominations also in the New Testament and what Jesus said about a man leaving his parents for a wife.

          • Anonymous

            Bruce here is what another poster said on this thread GodIsTrue – “there were more than 10 commandments in the old testament. There were many other commandments besides those. One is in Lev 20:13  “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination”…”

            I asked him if he followed ALL the laws in Leviticus and you make reference to Leviticus too with your “abomination” comment.

            So I will ask you the same question…do YOU follow ALL the laws of Leviticus? If you don’t why? And if you don’t follow the other laws of Leviticus why must EVERYONE follow this one and only law from Leviticus?

          • Anonymous

            I never said I was perfect, and if you are so acquanted with Levitical Laws you know some where made by men as Jesus pointed out. You also have to take in the readings in the New Testaments also. It also says, “All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God”

          • Anonymous

            Never said you were perfect Bruce. But you are picking and choosing which Old Testimate laws to follow and which ones to ignore. Why?

          • Anonymous

            I am not picking and choosing, you have to take the Bible as a whole, and not just the Old Testament. In saying I am not perfect is I try to be according to His will. And as I said I am not the the judge, even Christians take to soft of a stance on other things, whether lieing, cheating stealing. God does not distinquish between sins.

          • Anonymous

            “I am not picking and choosing…” sure you are Bruce. You have taken one verse out of Leviticus and ignored the rest. You are NOT taking the Bible as a “whole” if you ignore all the other prohibitions listed in that book.

          • Anonymous

            I did not think I was, as I stated you have to read the New Testament as well. If you read the New Testament as well it is very clear as to a man marrying a women and also discussion same sex lust. Before you say it, yes it also talks about lusting aftger women.

          • Anonymous

            Again, Jesus never spoke against homosexuality. If all you can point to is his support for men leaving their parents for a wife, that’s pretty weak.

            Plus, this argument has nothing whatsoever to do with civil marriage— we have no religious requirements for civil marriage, interfaith couples can marry, as can atheists.

          • Anonymous

            Read the New Testament , also I do  not believe the word homosexual was around then.

      • Anonymous

        Bruce….Jesus never said word one about homosexuality. Not. One. Word.

        • Anonymous

          He did say a man shall leave his parents for a wife. Also if you believe 3 are one, we know what God says. Read Romans and Acts. Though all the Book needs to be read.

  • Tyke

    At least one of the many, many versions of Mitt Romney (or it it Mitt Kerry?) would definately vote YES!!!

    http://i.imgur.com/tvOjC.jpg
     

  • Anonymous

    So, where are we supposed to direct comments on the referendum question if we have suggestion as to wording?

    • Tyke

       http://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/elec/2012/proposed2012question.html

  • Anonymous

    I am voting NO, and thank you Charlie Summers for the straight forward wording.   Homosexuality is one of the 4 sins that cries out to heaven for God’s vengeance .  No God fearing person should vote yes.

    •  “Don’t try and frighten us with your sorcerer’s ways Lord Quartz. Your sad devotion to that ancient religion has not given you clairvoyance enough to recover the stolen Death Star plans…. I mean to prevent the passage of SSM.”

      p.s. Why would anyone need to fear God? I thought your god is love…

      • Anonymous

        The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline.Proverb 1:7

        •  I fear Lord Vader, he was a pretty nasty guy. Does that count?

        • Anonymous

          Marriage license is a civil license issued by the state that may be performed in either a church or in a civil ceremony.

    • Tyke

       You only know of 4 mortal sins?

      Ok

      Different Bible than most of us have read apparently.

      • Anonymous

        Tyke do yourself a favor and open a bible someday.   Moral sins kill the person’s soul, but there are 4 sins that cry out to heaven for God’s vengeance.  My guess is you agree with other 3, but you just don’t like the one regarding homosexuality.

        • Anonymous

          Maybe he will when you stop eating shellfish.

    • Anonymous

      The bible says far more in support of slavery than it says against homosexuality.

      There’s nothing sinful about two committed adults wanting to support and protect the life they build together in love.

    • Anonymous

       I grow very tired of the Christian Taliban in this country. Religious terrorists and tyrants. A pox on fundamentalists of all faiths.

      • Anonymous

        Just because YOU don’t like what God has to say about homosexuality YOU call it religious terrorism .  YOU have put yourself above God, shame on YOU.  

        • Anonymous

          And YOU are attempting to usurp both the U.S. and Maine Constitution by replacing Civil law with Religious law.

  • It seems so silly to me that we “need” to write in that clergy will not be forced to preform same sex marriages. They have all ways been protected from this. My mother’s Catholic priest refused to marry her and my father because he was a Baptist.

     It is just a silly argument the opponents of same sex marriage are using as a scare tactic. 

    • ChuckGG

      It is silly.  But, the public isn’t swiftest group around.  Will they know this?  I really wonder!  After all, we have seen in these forums for years the complete lack of understanding of secular vs. sectarian marriage.  The religious crowd believes a church has to be involved in order to be married.

      This, despite the fact that couples have been eloping and getting married by a Justice of the Peace forever!  Perhaps, they think a JP is somehow related to religion?  It is beyond me to figure out how they think.

      I don’t know how you word the question and imply only secular marriage.  Don’t mention it and you have people running around with their skirts on fire believing a priest is going to be held at gunpoint until he performs a “homo marriage.” 

  • Guest

    Summers for Senate 2012

  • Anonymous

    What I have never been able to understand, is why a human rights issue like this is subject to a state-wide vote! What would have happened if slavery was decided in this fashion? Is there anyone dumb enough to think that there would not be states in our nation where slavery would still be legal? The same is true for allowing women to vote.
    If you are against Gay marraiges, then DON’T GET ONE!!!
    Hopefully for once there are enough enlightened citizens in our state to put this issue to rest once and for all. Equal rights are NOT Special Rights!

  • Anonymous
    • Anonymous

      People should watch these vids.  

  • Anonymous

     “Do you favor a law allowing marriage licenses for same-sex couples, and that protects religious freedom by ensuring that no religion or clergy be required to perform such a marriage in violation of their religious beliefs?”
    The pro homosexual crowd will never allow this to stand.  If their side wins in no time at all they will demand church’s to perform marriages for homosexuals.  This issue is not about marriage it’s about making people accept homosexuality.

    • Anonymous

      Please list cases from ANY of the states that currently allow SSM that demonstrate your claim that, “The pro homosexual crowd will never allow this to stand.  If their side
      wins in no time at all they will demand church’s to perform marriages
      for homosexuals.”

      If you cannot show ANY case where this is occurring you are fear mongering just like NOM did in 2009 when they made claims that “it” would be taught in schools if the SSM law was allowed to stand. That was fear mongering prior to the 2009 and was disclosed by the SSM opponents to be an out and out lie after the election (but since they won that vote I guess it didn’t matter that purported “Christians” lied) so do the ends justify the means? 

    • So I often do my best to be polite but your just a ridiculous fear monger.   Has a Catholic priest ever been forced to marry protestants? Are Rabis forced to marry Mormons?

      Grow up and stop butting into other peoples business because your scared every single thing and person that is not “just like you.”
       

You may also like