October 17, 2017
Augusta Latest News | Poll Questions | Susan Collins | Stephen King | Fall Foliage

Comments for: Supporters want a wordier same-sex marriage question on November’s ballot

Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

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

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

  • Anonymous

    Hmm.  I wonder why the Secretary of State would leave out that language about the religious exemption???  It really needs to be included in the ballot question.

    • Anonymous

      Because he knows that the next step for the homosexual crowd is to go after the Churches here in Maine.   This issue is not about allowing homosexuals to marry it’s about them wanting society to accept their aberrant lifestyle.

      • Anonymous

        Not true. 

        The state can’t force churches to marry interfaith couples or people who have previously been divorced. This instance would be no different. 

        • Anonymous

          Doesn’t mean they will not try. One step at a time.

          • Anonymous

            And I guess you missed this part of the article too bruce.

            “Conley said Wednesday that the so-called religious exemption isn’t legally necessary because the religious exemption is covered by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”

            And the “Conley” referenced above is Carroll Conley, executive director of the Christian Civic League of Maine.

            So bruce if Carrol Conley just publicly stated that the “religious exemption” is unnecessary because of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution why do you persist in posting inaccurate and misleading statements like “Doesn’t mean they will not try. One step at a time.”?

          • Anonymous

            Not inaccurate, not misleading, JD…the gay lobby has acted under the principle of incrementalism.   When gay rights legislation was passed, the proponents at that time were asked if gay “marriage” was next.  He responded that there were no immediate plans to move in that direction…within 2-3 years, guess what happened. 

          • Anonymous

            But it’s not something that’s even possible. As I’ve already pointed out, the state can’t step in and force a church to marry an interfaith couple. This would be no different. It’s incredibly dishonest to suggest so.

          • ChuckGG

            You see why I just roll my eyes?  How can you explain the most basic principles of law to people who refuse to “get it?”  Any review of history would show countless similar examples, yet for some inane reason, they (1) believe otherwise, and (2) actually think gay people are interested in having a religious wedding ceremony in a church that hates them when there are so many other churches in the land pleased and willing to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony.

            When you cannot get this basic construct to register with them, how can you possible speak to them about anything even slightly more complex?

            I challenge them to cite ONE case in American jurisprudence where the church has been forced by law to perform ANY of their sacred ceremonies where they wish not to.  It hasn’t happened for previously divorced, inter-racial, or inter-faith couples.  The law has no say in (and doesn’t care about) what ceremonies a church won’t perform.  (Obviously, the flip-side is not true – the State does care about ceremonies involving child abuse and human sacrifices.)  But, forcing a church TO perform a ceremony?  Never has happened, never will happen.  There is no means possible to achieve this short of repealing the First Amendment.

            But, moreover, there is no interest in this by the SSM crowd.  There just is not.  I defy anyone to cite a case where the authorities have come in and forced a church to perform any ceremony, much less a marriage ceremony.

            Don’t you, just sometimes, want to get a large set of cymbals, bang them together, and yell, “Wake the &@*! up, already!”?

          • Anonymous

            dirigo I am going to ask three questions concerning religious institutions and marriage.

            1. Currently, can a church or religious official decide not to perform a religious, church sanctioned marriage ceremony for any reason? Yes or No.

            2. Does Article I, Section 3 of the Maine Constitution provide and/or allow the state government to pass and enforce a law that mandates who a church must marry?

            3. Does the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provide and/or allow the federal government to pass and enforce a law that mandates who a church must marry?

          • Tyke

             1. Yes. Churches can set their own rules about thier own ceremnonies and beliefs  and the government cannot interfere (see Westboro Church and the stuff it is legally permitted to do for example).

            2. No, that would violate the US Constitution. The US Constitution supersedes state constitutions and laws.

            3. No, the constitution is clear, and The US Constitution supersedes all federal laws.  The only way to change the protections in it is to pass an amnedment. Since any amendment has to clear very, very high hurdles to be ratified, that will not happen.

          • Joseph Willingham

            I have heard you say this before, but I am not sure what you are referring to.  I am not sure who has the authority to speak for all gay people in the state or the country.

          • Anonymous

            It was Jesse Connolly, who was leading support for gay rights legislation at the time.

          • Anonymous

             If your church determined on the basis of its teachings,  that couples of differing faiths, denominations  or races were ineligible to be married within that church …. would the government have the right to force the church to perform said marriage?

          • Tyke

            Some private religious colleges even have rules banning interracial and inter faith  dating. No state or federal law could change that policy or charge them with anything for enforcing it.

          • Joseph Willingham

            People try to do stuff all the time, but that doesn’t mean that they’ll succeed.  I don’t want to force churches and no one I know in the movement wants that either.  That is NOT part of the “agenda” no matter how many times it’s repeated on the interwebs.

          • Guest

            Having the same legal rights as us is not indicative of a desire to change the world. That is a non sequitur.

          • Anonymous

            Though in essence it does change it.

          • Guest

            Doesn’t change a thing. It only adds by putting everyone on the same legal playing field. Nothing more and nothing less.

            Do we heterosexuals have a private club that won’t let other  people in? Wouldn’t that be like the “separate but equal” way that defined society for years? Not having the same legal marital rights is separate and is not equal.

          • Anonymous

            Ignorance at its finest.

          • Anonymous

            Foresight.

          •  Are you a prophet now?

          • Anonymous

            One does not have to be.

          • pbmann

            Blind hatred

          • Anonymous

            Those are your words, A person does not hate, just because they happen to believe different than yourself. My eyes are very open, and because I do not sure your opinion does not mean it is hate.

          • ChuckGG

            I am sure back in 1967 when SCOTUS voted 9-0 in Loving v. Virginia making illegal the ban on inter-racial marriage, many people did not “hate” the couples involved in inter-racial marriage.  Those people thought it was wrong but did not necessarily hate the parties involved.

            Nonetheless, those people were wrong.

            They wished to deny two consenting adults of different races from a legal ceremony enjoyed by others.  Their marriage would affect no one else, not society, and not adversely themselves.  The only reason to justify the discrimination was because the majority “didn’t like” inter-racial marriage.  Some “hated.”  Some did not.

            That is exactly the way it is today with SSM. 

            Yes, people believe differently, and will continue to believe differently.  That does not give them the right to deny other people the same civil rights you enjoy.

          • Anonymous

            Wonderfully stated.

          • ChuckGG

            Why, thank-you!  Even a blind pig finds an acorn once in awhile.

          • Anonymous

            Their is a difference between color, the only distinction the Bible makes is Jews and Gentiles again you have to take the whole book not pick certain verses. In color you are not talking man and man or women and women.

          • ChuckGG

            I couldn’t care less about the bible.  What I am referring to is the discrimination.  Part of that particular instance, and in many others throughout American history, often had quotes from the bible to justify the practice of discrimination.  “Women should stay in the home and tend to the children as God intended,” and so on.

            Of course, this is all hogwash, but these people had to have something upon which to justify their statements.  Calling upon an omnipotent potentate is the usual course of events.

            But, the whole point is, none of this has one bloody thing to do with religion!  This is a secular legal matter.  That’s it.  What your church does or doesn’t do has -zero- effect on the rest of us.  The churches do not have a dog in this fight.  They just don’t.

          • Anonymous

            You may not, but it is still my right under the Constitution of the United States. I still have the right expression also, I’ll still pray for you.
            Also if you are going to use one verse out of the Bible, you should read the rest of it.

          • ChuckGG

            The only reason I quote any of the bible is because invariably it is used to justify the discrimination against SSM (and many other issues).  Believe it or not, I really am fine with people, their religion, their bibles, and so on.  It is a free country and they may do as they see fit.  I also recognize there are many, many religions and variations in the world.  They, too, at least in the USA, should have the right to practice their faith in a peaceable manner.  I will even concede and endure the “call to prayers” by the Muslims in the minarets (personally, I find it atonal and annoyingly loud) even though I have nothing to do with Islam.  It’s probably no worse than enduring traffic jams around mega-churches or hearing church bells chime (which I actually like).

            All that said, I draw the line when any church or religion starts messing in my business because their perception of the morality of my existence is contrary to their beliefs (despite other churches embracing SSM, for example). 

            In the 1970’s when I was a young lad, I do not recall ever hearing about all this hubbub from the religious crowd.  All the churches did their thing and co-existed peacefully (at least, seemingly so in Maine).  Then, Jerry Falwell waddled onto the scene and these self-righteous bible thumpers got involved in politics and attempts to force their beliefs on people who had nothing to do with their churches!  It is so preposterous and rude, it makes my blood boil to this day.  My message to them:  Go do whatever the hell you want to do, but leave the rest of us alone!  Making/Affecting civil laws against us is the epitome of hubris!  Who died and left you in charge?  (Don’t say “Jesus did, Amen”)   The unmitigated gall of these people!

            I wish this crowd would take a bit of medicine from their own cabinet and ask the question, WWJD?  That, my friend, seems glaringly absent of late.

          • Anonymous

            I would not presume to speak for Jesus, as I have said many times I am not nor will I be the Judge. As what he says is to Love everyone, but not the sin. Religion whether people like it or not, is intertwined into our Nation, and Constitution. In the same instance you are saying that I should not voice my opinion on the murder of innocent children, because liberals call an unborn child a fetus.

          • ChuckGG

            No, please voice all the opinions you wish.  Interfering with the Constitutional rights of others is crossing the line.  You seem to be of the “Hate the sin, love the sinner” camp.  Well, fine.  Your opinion.  I personally don’t think being gay is any “sin” at all.

            As far as religion being “intertwined in our Nation and Constitution,” I disagree.  Intertwined in our Nation – I will give you that, but numbers are not showing it gaining much popularity of late.  As far as the Constitution goes, short of the First Amendment mentioning that our government won’t endorse a specific religion, I see no references to it.  Perhaps, if you look it up and show me where religion is mentioned in the Constitution, it would help.  The Constitution is what we base our laws upon.

            As far as abortion goes, born-again Christian and Surgeon General C. Everett Koop stated it quite accurately:  “If you want to stop [most] abortion, stop unwanted pregnancies.”  And, in this day and age, it seems strange to me that abortion is even needed given the availability of contraception.  Koop went on to say that unfortunately, the people who are the most anti-abortion also tend to be the most anti-birth control.  Abstinence programs, of course, have a poor success record.

            But, that is a different subject for a different time.

          • Tyke

             Someday you should read the U.S. Constitution. It is a wonderful document and assures that your unfounded fears will remain unfounded.

          • Anonymous

            That is why this issue is before us once again.

          • pbmann

            Doesn’t mean they will, either.

      • Anonymous

         Yes, watch out, the gays will go after clergy with pitch forks and torches.

        • Anonymous

          Exactly.  Thank you – kind of how the opponents of Prop 8 went after supporters of the law in California.

          • We have another kool-aid drinker I see.

          • Anonymous

            Absolutely…a big gulp of reality.   Try it sometime.   It’s very refreshing!

          • I do live in reality. I don’t have invisible friends in the sky.

          • Anonymous

            You don’t?   Maybe you should try dialing up your invisible friends named “time” and “random chance” to see if they can whip up a transitional form.  

            See, reality is when you believe that information can only be generated by intelligence. 

            Delusion is believing that information is a byproduct of naturalism.

          • Anonymous

            I see you have your church approved blinders on. 

          • Anonymous

            Eyes wide open looking at the evidence.   Have you ever seen an instance in which information (which is essentially what DNA is) arose out of nothing?

            Please share! 

            Who has blinders on?

          •  Yep, it is usually called mutation, we have seen much of it over the past few years. Ever heard the term “Antibiotic resistant strain”?

          • Anonymous

            Tell me – is information added to the DNA to create the mutation or is information lost? 

          • Anonymous

            Neither, because that’s not the way it works. I think you may be confused about the “information” that DNA holds. 

          • Anonymous

            What evidence? You have evidence of the existence of god? Didn’t think so.Back in 2009 scientists were able to recreate RNA, a precursor to DNA through simple evaporation and UV radiation. So take those synthetic RNA strands, and add millions or billions of years to evolve, and you have life. No god was needed. You have blinders on. 

          • Anonymous

            You really are funny, you know that?  Here’s your own statement – emphasis mine:

            “Back in 2009 SCIENTISTS were able to reCREATE RNA, a precursor to DNA through simple evaporation and UV radiation.” 

            Your statement uses two words that indicate the presence of intelligence. 

            You support my argument while attempting to provide credence to yours.   Thank you!

            If you can cite an instance in which RNA essentially creates itself by simple evaporation and UV radiation, let me know.

            Again, I’m the one who has blinders?  What a hoot!

          • Anonymous

            We’re talking about simple, natural compounds, in water, left to evaporate in the sun. When the water is gone, the compounds have joined into more complex patterns, some having traits that neither of the parent compounds had. repeat the process, and RNA forms, all without any intervention. Imagine a large puddle containing, among other things,  phosphates, and sugars in water. The sun comes out, dries up the puddle, combining the phosphates and sugars into more complex forms. These complex forms are irradiated by the suns intense UV rays, because the atmosphere wasn’t always like this, and we know that radiation causes mutations. Clouds come, and it rains filling the puddle back up allowing the newly formed compounds to mix. The sun comes out again drying the puddle, irradiating the compounds again,  and again the compounds have joined into more complex  compounds. Repeat this process for a few hundred, thousand, or million years, and life forms.  

          • Anonymous

            Tell me, were the atmospheric conditions when this happened the same as they are now?  What was the oxygen content?   What was the ratio of one compound to another?   How did just the right compounds get there?   What are the mathematical odds that it happened just as you described?   Were conditions entirely uniform during this period of time?

            These are all critical questions that must be answered for your scenario to have any validity.  I’m eager to see your reply. 

            Furthermore, why don’t we see life spontaneously generating today?   Your scientific experiments don’t count because they introduce the element of intelligence into the equation, which by your theory didn’t happen.

          • Anonymous

            You are a fool. I can see that now. Your tissue paper arguments aside, I can see that there is no point in trying to be reasonable with you. I will answer your questions but I see now you will not understand any of it. Not because you are incapable, but because you choose to see nothing other than what your masters tell you. 
            Not entirely unknown, but your asking what our planet was like almost 4 billion years ago (not 6000 as your book of fables would tell us). O2 content was almost zero on early earth.  The ratio of compounds, like your deity, is unknowable, but we, as thinking, logical, and reasonable sentient life forms, can make inferences from scientific data, and physical evidence gathered. As for the odds, I’d say 1:1, because we are here, and there has never been a single shred of evidence that and sort of intelligence was involved. We see new life emerging every day on this planet. The method has changed, but the result is the same. Life begins, and no deity was needed. 

          • Anonymous

            Thank you for revealing your colors and responding as a devoted religious adherent would.   It’s instructive that all it takes is a few basic questions to draw out the religious fervor you just displayed. 

            We know that O2 had to be very low then because it would be toxic to the origin of life, right?   But because of the lack of oxygen in the atmosphere would have prevented a buildup of ozone, it would have been impossible to filter out enough of the sun’s UV radiation to prevent the primeval swamp of chemicals necessary to, ummm…create life… from being burned up, unless we happened up on just the right ratio at the right time for the right duration.  Lucky break, wasn’t it?  But, then again, according to you, that took millions of years.   So, apparently, we had a constant environment with the right oxygen content to not prevent life from forming, but also to stop the sun’s radiation from killing it for millions of years, which would have been difficult, given all the upheaval and energy that was being released at that time. 

            By the way, circular reasoning never provides credence to your theory…just looking out for you there.

            And finally, new life is emerging every day on the planet?   Louis Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation over a century ago.

          • Anonymous

            “If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people.” Hugh Laurie “House M.D.” I’m not going to continue to argue with you. You have no intention of listening to anything anyone says that doesn’t coincide with your bronze age fairy tale. I do, however feel it necessary to correct some of your… misconceptions. Now I don’t know for sure, and I’m nowhere near arrogant enough to say this is 100% accurate, because we are talking about 3 to 4 billion years ago. O2 wasn’t toxic to the first forms of life on earth, there just wasn’t enough of it to sustain oxygen based life. Second, many early forms of life were dependent on UV rays, in much the same way as plants are dependent on light for photosynthesis. Third, I displayed no religious fervor, I am as detached from this conversation with you as you are from reality. If new information was put forth tomorrow, or new evidence was discovered that would clear up the remaining mystery surrounding the origins of life on earth, I, like most people able to use basic logic, would incorporate this new information into the theories we currently have, and adjust our view according to the new facts. Religious fanatics, like yourself, simply ignore anything that the cavemen didn’t put into their fables 2000 years ago. Almost finished. You accuse me of circular reasoning? All i did was relay the results of a scientific experiment attempting to explain the origins of life on earth, you stuck your fingers in your ears and shouted “LALALALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOU!” You want circular reasoning? The church has been teaching you people to use it to convince others  that the bible is more than a collection of stories on par with Grimm’s Fairy Tales. “The bible is infallible, because it is the word of god because the bible says so, and the bible is infallible.”
            Finally, new life is emerging everyday on this planet. It’s called evolution. You know about evolution, right? It’s a theory your master tried to deny for the last 100 years or so that says, simply put, “Things change over time, and given enough time things change a lot”.  

          • Anonymous

            Proof please.

          • Anonymous

            How quick we forget the hate that was shown on the streets by the gay crowd.Remember beating up granny.conveniently not.

          • Anonymous

            And remember Charlie Howard? Pleaded for his life and they still tossed him into the Kenduskeag. Remember Matthew Shepard (sp?)

          • pbmann

            You list the victims of gay violence on straight people because of their sexual orientation and I will list the victims of straight violence on gay people because of their sexual orientation. 

            Lets see who runs out of victims first.

          • Anonymous

            And remember the thousands of gay kids being bullied to death in schools as we speak? Conveniently not.

          • Anonymous

            Sure – here’s some:

            http://gayconservative.org/2008/11/07/burn-their-churches-to-the-ground/

            http://www.calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=819d49c3-7feb-4e32-b36f-5000172a664d

            http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/san_francisco&id=6584961

            http://michellemalkin.com/2009/11/10/climate-of-hate-more-threats-from-the-gay-marriage-mob/

            http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/business/08stream.html?_r=3

            and even that last one, courtesy of the NYT – no friend of the conservative cause – highlights the potential repercussions of making the donor lists available because of the intimidation and bullying tactics used by the loving and peaceful pro-gay “marriage” zealots.

          • Anonymous

            I think your point is really stupid. So, these gay people who are being denied equal rights are supposed to support the people who are working to keep them down? The articles you refer to aren’t bullying and intimidation. If an anti-gay person owns a business and contributes to anti-gay measures I should be free to know that and choose not to do business with them. For you to call that bigotry and bullying is ridiculous and it’s anti-free speech in all honesty.

          • Anonymous

            LOL!  Obviously, you didn’t do much reading of those links.  You can think whatever you want to think. 

            You must have been one of those kids who put their fingers in their ears and yelled “Lalalalala” rally loud…’cause it’s essentially what you’re doing now.

          • Anonymous

            And I notice you have no real response beyond personal attacks. Must mean you have no point to make at all. I did read the links, except the obviously biased ones like michellemalkin.

            The bullying and intimidation you claim to happen has nothing on being denied equal rights. It also has nothing on the bullying and intimidation that gays themselves face.

            How’s this for a very recent example?
            http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/06/20/police-arrestidentify-anti-gay-graffiti-suspects/

          • Joseph Willingham

            SOME angry people reacted poorly, but that is what happens in a democracy.  How many people are still reacting poorly to the abortion decision?  

          • pbmann

            Most terrorism in the US is right-wing violence against Pro-Choice people and buildings, second only to violence against Federal Buildings.

          • Anonymous

            And therein lies the difference.  The mainstream pro-life crowd, pro-marriage  crowd (i.e. conservatives) decry the actions of the extremist few. 

            Mainstream leftists celebrate, encourage, overlook or make excuses for the bullying and intimidation of their causes celebres…

          • Anonymous

            Watch Fox News and listen to Glenn Beck much?

          •  Ah yes, the usual fallback of an empty mind.

          • Um… as a TrueNative, their religion is thousands of years older and hundreds of millions of lives less murder-y than Christianity so imma go with TrueNative on this one.

          •  Okay, you missed my point, but so be it.

          •  Nah, I just let it go. It cancels out the “Marrying animals next” and “gays are pedophiles” argument and evens things out.

          •  And I mentioned them WHEN exactly?

          •  No you didn’t at all, I meant the Fox News stuff is the “go to” thing for one side as the “Marrying animals” thing is for the other. They cancel each other out. However, TrueNative having a much older and wiser culture then most means that they prob do not have an empty mind, just an open one.

          • Anonymous

            No and no.  Don’t have FoxNews on my cable lineup.  Don’t care much for Beck. 

            Create straw men much?

          • pbmann

            But you do seem to mimic their talking points, though.

          • Anonymous

            Actually, I’ll let you in a little secret.  Just you and me, OK? 

            I’m the one who gives them the talking points.   Yup – I wind ’em up and let ’em go. 

            Really?   Do you think everything’s a conspiracy?  Take the tinfoil off and enter the real world.  It’s called a worldview or belief system.  There just happen to be some who think the same way I think. 

            Just like there are liberals who feel the way you feel. 

          • Anonymous

            Er, I think you need to recalibrate your sarcasm meter.

          • Anonymous

            You’re right.  I should have said suspicious white powder, vandalism, bullying and intimidation.  My bad.

          • Anonymous

            Can you give me links to these reports? When I google ‘violence by gay rights advocates’  , or ‘threats by gay rights groups’ I just get all of the violence and threats against them, not by them. Thanks.

          • Tyke

             Businesses that contributed to a cause aimed at denying rights to a segment of the population were boycotted by those who believe that there should not be special rights for heterosexuals that are denied to others.

            Both sides boycott. Limbaugh and his ilk push that sort of thing all of the time.

            It is called democracy and the free market. Which of those do you oppose?

          • Anonymous

            You’ll note that in the examples I cited above, I didn’t address anything having to do with boycotting (even though I’m not big on it – but more power to those who are).  I cited examples of actual bullying, intimidation, threats, vandalism, etc.  

            Again, you’re grasping at nothing but straw men.    Address the actual hate on full display by the extremist redefinition of marriage zealots and we can talk.

          • Tyke

            You cited some unreferenced antidotes of isolated things that happened. I have not heard of them and am not even sure you can show they have a direct cause of the folks involved being anti gay marriage. It’s hard to tell because you gave no citations.

            If you believe they are relevant then we must compare the incidents of violence against gays because they are gay to the incidences against others because they oppose gay rights (and be sure to balance the numbers for the smaller number of gays who exist to begin with by using % of the population).

            I am certain we will find an overwhelming balance of violence against gays as compared to the isolated (and widely condemned) things you keep repeating yourself on.

      • I suggest you straight people stop having sex then. You are the ones having gay babies.

        • Anonymous

           Gays targeting schools and  pushing their perversion is the problem.

          • Joseph Willingham

            Targeting schools?  Give us an example…

          • Anonymous

            Proof

          • Anonymous

            Sounds like you are the 1 pushing perversion with your narrow minded thinking

          • I take it you don’t have children in a public school because if you did you would know your statement is 100% false.

          • Anonymous

            Your comment would be funny, if you didn’t whole-heartedly believe it.

        • Anonymous

          Oh, Kevin———–best quote on any of these boards in ages and ages! I laughed out loud.

      • Anonymous

        I guess you missed this part of the article.

        “Conley said Wednesday that the so-called religious exemption isn’t legally necessary because the religious exemption is covered by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”

        And the “Conley” referenced above is Carroll Conley, executive director of the Christian Civic League of Maine.

        So Quartz if Carrol Conley just publicly stated that the “religious exemption” is unnecessary because of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution why do you persist in posting inaccurate and misleading statements like “the next step for the homosexual crowd is to go after the Churches here in Maine”?

        • Anonymous

          I don’t care what Carroll Conley says or believes.  The left in this country wants to get rid of religious exemptions.  I’ve read enough on this forum and others to know that is what the pro homosexual marriage crowd eventually wants.   Charlie Summers should leave it as it is worded, we don’t need convoluted referendum questions that just confuse people on how to vote.

          • Anonymous

            So you don’t care what Conley says….interesting….who’s marching orders do you follow?

      • Joseph Willingham

        My dear Quartz24, if that were the case, wouldn’t Mr. Summers be more inclined to make it clear to the voters that there is no danger of churches being forced to perform same-sex marriages?  Not only is it in the language of the law, but it’s also guaranteed by the Constitution.  What is wrong with make it clear?

        Quartz24, you have yourself a lovely blessed day!!!  :o)

      • Anonymous

        Trust me. The “homosexual” crowd and their supporters want nothing to do with those radical Christian Churches full of radical zealots who insist that everyone live by a code that they dictate. They do the very thing that they criticize Muslims of doing.

        I don’t want anything to do with these bigoted churches or the people in them because they are so far from the teachings of Christ that it makes me sick at heart.

      • Guest

        I just don’t see how that would happen. Many religions and churches
        already support marriage equality. Some same-sex couples may want to
        marry in a church that approves of their marriage, but why on earth
        would anyone want to force a church, that is vehemently against their
        marriage, to marry them in spite of the fact? It is just a matter of fact, that freedom of religion is already protected by the 1st amendment. If anyone tries to compel a religion to give recognition to same-sex marriages, it will be from
        their own congregations.

      • pbmann

        I homosexuals get the right to be married, either by the local government or by churches that want to marry them, why would they “go after” churches that don’t want to marry them.  That would be like making a Christian church marrying a couple using a non-Christian marriage ceremony, not going to happen.

        • Anonymous

          You are going to go after the churches because you really could careless about the whole marriage issue.  You just want acceptance of an aberrant lifestyle.

      • Anonymous

        Yeah, sorry, not buying what you’re selling. Most people who don’t care for church’s don’t care enough about them to spend precious time on them.
        Aside from wanting them to pay taxes, I could care less what people in a church do, as long as it isn’t preaching government issues from the pulpit; I abhor that as well.

        • Anonymous

          The true side of the homosexual crowd.  This is why the people will never vote for their aberrant lifestyle.    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/activists-take-out-frustration-ronald-reagan_647733.html

    • Anonymous

      Because religious institutions already have that right, and passing this law wouldn’t change that in any way, so adding that wordage would serve no point, except to drag religion into a civil issue.  In the end isn’t that what you people are trying to do any way? Forcing people to live their lives in a manner you see fit? The good news is, bigots, like you, are the ones who look foolish in the eyes of history. When your children, and your children’s children look back on your actions, do you think they will be proud? Look up protesters of interracial marriage. See the hate and bigotry that tried to do the same thing you would like to do now, deny HUMAN BEINGS basic civil rights? THAT is exactly how foolish you will look in 40 years. 

  • Guest

    This is why I love to hate  the Pulse radio show  with Pat LaMarche and don cookson in the morning. God all they talk about is how everyone is a biggot or racist if we don’t fall in line with the Gays and poor people.  we are haters.  I call just to bust their cookies with my anti gay marriage opinions…

    • Anonymous

      I’m sure they appreciate hearing from you when you call in to prove their point. Must make for entertaining radio.

    • Anonymous

      P.S. Might want to check your spelling on “biggot.”

  • Anonymous

    Or else what?

  • Anonymous

    Gay or straight: pay your taxes and don’t let your dog crap on my lawn, and I don’t care what you do behind closed doors.  I see no problem with explicitly calling out that religious freedoms won’t be affected. 

    • Anonymous

      True, and it is also true that 63% of serial killers are homosexuals.

      We are talking about whether it is advisable to let men marry men, not deliver the mail.

      • Anonymous

        Do you have anything that proves that?

        • Anonymous

          Yes.

  • Anonymous

    A sugar coated apple does not change the inherent naturalness of the apple but acts only as an artificial, shiny, eye-catching seduction. Sugar coated phraseology is diversionary and therefore would qualify as an unethical presentation to the voters. 

    An honest, direct,  “Do you want to allow legally protected, same-sex, non-marriage relationships in Maine?” has a much higher chance of voter approval as Mainers already know the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

    • Anonymous

      And what exactly are “legally protected, same-sex, non-marriage relationships”?

      • Anonymous

        Beats me, but I’m sure there are others who could provide definition  for you and even dub a name where none exists now. 

    • Anonymous

      Marriage as defined by a bronze age book of fables is defines as “one man and one woman” (except the parts where it says one man and as many women as his harem will hold). The modern world defines marriage as ” Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that creates kinship. The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but is usually an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged. Such a union is often formalized via a wedding ceremony.”

      • Anonymous

        Anyone can redefine, theorize, experiment and quote others who do the same. Academic or social acrobatics, no matter how often repeated will not alter the truth Mainers know as the commonsense understanding that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.  

  • Anonymous

    Yes… yes, the question may raise doubts to some extent. Perhaps it should be revised as such: “Should Mainers abdicate the sanctity of the institution of marriage in favor of granting special status to pairs of homosexual men or women that will result in a state sanctioned decree heralding unnatural unions, while implementing social and instructional programs that promote immoral and harmful lifestyles in the public school system.”

    • Anonymous

      *yawn*

      I guess you missed the news item back in November of 2009 that was released by the Yes on 1 folks after the vote where they admitted that they “mislead” (lied by any other definition) to the public about what would be taught in the public schools as a result of rejecting SSM.

      They lied then…and you continue that lie now.

      • Anonymous

         Right! I’m more inclined to believe that your counselor and confidant – the Father of Lies — is the source of your unreconciled dilemma.

        • Anonymous

          *yawn*….

          I don’t have a “counselor and confidant” called “the Father of Lies”.

          Do you deny that the Yes on 1 folks admitted they lied about SSM being taught in schools because homosexuals were allowed to marry?

          • Guest

            Funny how opponents avoid acknowledging the facts by not responding to legitimate questions.   It is always..homosexuals are evil, they are a curse, are perverts, pedophiles, a horrible mental condition, will be taught in schools, Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, immorality, special rights, bad parents, will lead to marrying animals, the downfall of society, and on and on and on.  Nothing but pure hatred, but if you present opponents with a substantial argument based on facts, all you hear is crickets.

        •  Time out: Lets take a look at the “Record” book. In this corner we have god. Beacon of love, friend to all. In the other corner, Satan. Father of lies and all around evil-doer. Lets go to the tale of the tape.

          Biblical deaths Satan is responsible for: 10
          Biblical deaths God is responsible for: 2, 476,633 (not counting the flood, Sodom, etc which puts the estimate somewhere in the 25 million range)

          Remind me again, who is the good guy is in that book?

    • Anonymous

      All that you do with this statement, Quequeeg (kind of pains me to see you use his name, a character I’ve always loved. Your misspelling eases that pain a bit, at least) is demonstrate the need for the church specific language in the ballot question.  You are once again pushing the ‘they’ll teach homosexual stuff in the schools’ bull, leaving little doubt that the ‘they’ll force churches to marry gays’ argument is not far behind.

    • Anonymous

      There are more than plenty of straight individuals “abdicating the sanctity of the institution of marriage” through divorce, adultery and domestic violence.  Passage of SSM is not going to harm it one bit.  After I vote for it and it passes, it is going to affect my marriage not one bit.  There will be no “special” rights granted, just granting the same rights many of us already enjoy.  Lastly, the teaching in school bit is exteremely false, overused and just plain tiresome to read/hear.

    • Anonymous

      Maybe the question should read “Do you want the equal treatment of all human beings regardless of race, age, national origin or sexual preference?” Or even better “Do you favor making interference in peoples personal lives by religious whack jobs a crime?”

      • Tyke

         … or how about, “Do you approve of repealing the special right to marry that just one segment of society currently enjoys?”

        Heterosexuals have special rights in today’s laws to marry. Aren’t true conservatives opposed to special rights?

        End special rights – marriage equality for all!

        • SO, you finally admit you want to deny special rights to a segment of society! If you were truly confident in your position, you wouldn’t be this worked up.

          • Tyke

            Uh, no silly. I want to eliminate the existence of special rights given to just ONE group by giving those same rights to everyone.

            You do have a basic comprehension problem, don’t you?

  • Anonymous

    Ya they need more words to confusing as possible so they can get something passed that’s been turnod down in every state multiple times

    • Tyke

       Every state multiple times?

      You sure about that one?

      In Maine it has not even been voted on multiple times.

  • Jonathan Smith

    The question is straight forward. They want to muddle it and make it confusing because the majority of Maine residents do not support men marrying men, women marrying women or people marrying their pet for that matter.  Marriage is an institution created by God with sacred vows between one man and one woman – that is all. Everyone would do well to respect their Creator for a change. “Same Sex” couples have civil unions – but they aren’t content with that – no, they will never be content until everyone is forced to accept their view. “Narrowminded” is a word thrown around every day by some of the biggest liberal bigots out there. It’s their way or the highway. I tolerate homosexuals but they are not simply content with tolerating heterosexuals. They must trample on the institution of marriage to feel complete.

    • Anonymous

      Ah the inevitable “marrying their pet” reference.

      “”Same Sex” couples have civil unions” where? In Maine? Could you please provide the law or link showing the law where “”Same Sex” couples have civil unions” in Maine?

      • ptkitty

        “Do you want to allow same-sex couples to marry?”   NO

        “Do you want additional wording, explanations, sugar-coating, or loopholes to decide on this issue?”  NO

        “Do you want to put a minimum time on ballot initiatives that simply repeat themselves in an attempt to wear you down?  YES …20 years

        • Anonymous

          “Do you want to put a minimum time on ballot initiatives that simply repeat themselves in an attempt to wear you down?  YES …20 years .  Dose that also go for towns an cities  ?

        • Anonymous

          How many times have we voted on TABOR?

          Tell you what kitty if you want to try to change the Maine Constitution to put time limits on citizen initiated questions, go ahead, it will fail.

          Oh, any time limits would not hpaced moated this ballot question. This is the first time it has gone to the voters. The prior vote was to repeal a law established by the legislature and signed into law by the Governor.

          • Anonymous

             “Oh, any time limits would not hpaced moated this ballot question.”

            WHAT???

          • Anonymous

            Impacted. Sorry… Cell post

          • Tyke

             Exactly the reason I stopped typing anything beyond simple yes/no type responses from my phone.

            My fingers are too fat and my eyes too weak to make that work.

        • Guest

           Yeah, I’m sure you will think that until the time comes that one of your civil rights is up for vote.  There won’t be anyone to hear you cry then.

    • Anonymous

       When you post the civil union laws of Maine, would you be so kind as to post the chapter and verses in the Bible that contain the sacred vows between one man and one woman that God included?
      Do you participate in the rights and benefits awarded married couples that are provided by the state and federal governments through the civil marriage license or did you skip the civil marriage license and marry your spouse in the eyes of God through a religious ceremony only?  Are couples who opt to marry via a non-clergy officiated ceremony married or not married … the state and federal governments legally recognize them …. do you?
      Not only do I tolerate heterosexuals, I embrace them ….. after all I was born to a couple of them and bore and raised three more. 

      • Anonymous

        Sorry Jacknlyn I can’t embrace your lifestyle.

    • Anonymous

      You are an arrogant person, Mr. Smith. Perhaps you should show your creator respect by adopting humility, which I believe he encouraged in his followers. Or is that one of the traits of a good christian that you don’t particularly like, and so therefore ignore? Do you also ignore ‘love thy neighbor’ and ‘judge not?’ It seems that the opponents of marriage equality too often espouse the negative, dictatorial and hateful parts of the bible, instead of the uplifting, positive parts. And you wonder why people don’t accept your arguments. And the statement that you ‘tolerate homosexuals but they are not simply content with’ that. Do you not see the very arrogance of that? Do you really feel that by ‘tolerating’ someone, you’re doing them a favor, and they should be happy about it?

      • He is not arrogant at all.Just following Gods wishes.To God living a homosexual lifestyle is a mortal sin.His rules.God wants us to share the information instead of turning our backs on the person.What that person then does with the information is up to him.We could be held accountable ourselfs by God if we don’t at least tell the person.Gods rules are what they are regardless if you like them or not.We will all have to answer to God in the end.

        •  My god is much more easy to get along with. It understands that good and bad must coincide in order to maintain balance. With my god, there is no heaven, there are no 72 virgins, you just become one with everything upon death.

        • Guest

          ….

        • Anonymous

          Leaving aside the point that the very existence of a god is debatable, we’re all still left with the undeniable fact that “God’s wishes” are always and inevitably determined by humans. You have an ancient book, written in one language, then translated into another, then revised and translated again, and again. A book which by all scholarly accounts was written by many different writers at many different times in many different places, who themselves were working out of now-missing manuscripts written in some cases centuries before. A book which is supposedly the inerrant word of the creator. Except that it was written by men. And is now interpreted by people, mostly men, who have their own agendas, and interpret each and every story in a manner that supports their own, pre-existing biases. So how do you really know what “God’s wishes” are? The truth is, you don’t. Nor do I. So be kind, and don’t assume you know what an all-powerful creator was thinking, or what he wants.

        • Anonymous

          If you want to live in a country ruled by religious law, move to Iraq. Otherwise, keep your medieval beliefs to yourself.

        • Anonymous

          If God considers a homosexual lifestyle a sin that is between them and God. Are you filling him for him? I am not voting yes or no in November…BECAUSE IT IS NONE OF MY BUSINESS!

        • Anonymous

          Yes we do.  Who cares what the pro homosexual crowd thinks of us, it’s more important we follow what God says about homosexuality than our secular society.

      • Anonymous

        In a lot of cases, I do not think the word tolerate is correct. Because I have a different belief does not mean I hate him or tolerate him. As you state we have to “love our neighbor”

      • Anonymous

        I guess Jonathan Smith must have written some truth that “offended” someone.

    •  The “marriage” arrangements “created by god” (as outlined in the bible) bear little resemblance to what we refer to as “marriage” today.  The woman was chattel, The children were Property of the father, and the man could have multiple wives (for reference see the story of Abraham father of all three desert religions)

      As a Pantheist I take no stock in “the bible” but it is always amazing to me how people who call themselves Christians, seem to pick and choose to which parts of the tome they adhere. 

      • Anonymous

        God created marriage between one man, Adam, and one woman, Eve. Man messed it up from there.

        • Anonymous

          And the state created its own version which is the discussion at hand. Has nothing to do with religion.

        •  In your fairytale book, yes, yes he did, but this is a grown-up conversation where we like to deal in reality, not fairytales.

          • Anonymous

             I don’t think you understand what the “Bible” really is.  It is a collection of 66 historical (yes, historical) documents written by 40 different authors over a period of years. 

            Ask yourself, where do we get all of our current knowledge for history?  The answer: ancient historical documents.  We currently have +5,000 copies of the New Testament alone.  The earliest fragment is dated to within 60 years after Christ’s death according to SECULAR historians.  (By the way, 90% of secular historians today believe that Christ was an actual person although they don’t believe in His deity or the miracles he performed. They concede there are too many extra-biblical historical references to Him by reliable sources to deny his actual existence.) Not only that, but they have a 99% accuracy rate for consistency between copies with only minor grammatical changes which do not change the idea or thought of the writings.

            Do you believe that Alexander the Great was real?  If so, you are believing in a “fairytale” by your own standards because we only have 5 main historical references to him, none of them primary sources, compared to 4 primary source documents (authenticated by secular historians) and scores of secondary source documents for the New Testament. Not only that, but those 5 main historical sources for Alexander were written more than 300 years after his supposed death.

            I’m not pointing this out to be snide or condescending.  I just want people to realize there is more to the “Bible” and history than most people realize.  It is not just a book thrown together by just one author to be dismissed as a “fairytale”.  I hear that way too often from people who are just ignorant of the facts.  The Bible is, and has been, the most scrutinized collection of historical documents in current and past history specifically because of the claims therein.  If it was historically inaccurate and the “fairytale” you claim it to be, historians wouldn’t be climbing on top of each other to be the first to “debunk” its historicity.  In fact, when a new dig unearths a lost city in the middle east, which historical documents do  archeologists primarily search for answers as to what city they found?  The Bible. 

            Fortunately for Christians and unfortunately for secular historians, they have, to this day, been unable to find any historical errors; otherwise, you would be hearing their shouting and the blasting from the news corps from space.

          •  Yea, and those parts about talking to a burning bush, all the animals in the world living withing walking distance of Noah’s house…
            Grimm’s fairytales are also historically accurate in the way the characters speak, the belief’s of the time, i.e. The Wait-a-Bit Inn which was a sort of purgatory for soldiers, Just as much as the places and manner of speech are historically accurate in Mark Twain’s stories. The smattering of truth in these stories does not mean they actually happened however.

            Think of it like this, BOOM, WWIII, humanity is left with only a smattering of inhabitants. The only books left is The Game of Thrones series. With no other education, this new breed of humanity could take this fiction to be historically accurate. Still doesn’t make it real just because they think it is.

          • Anonymous

            Did you know the Romans were meticulous record keepers, especially about executions carried out in  the name of the empire, and not one actual historical record exists that even mentions Jesus? In fact the only historical references about Jesus, supposedly the most important man in history, are in the christian bible. A book written by cavemen desperately trying to understand the world around them. 

          • Anonymous

            So how come only SOME of these historical documents were included in the bible, and not others? Could it possibly be that the editors chose the ones that furthered their agenda and ignored the ones that didn’t?

          •  Untill the day you have to face God.

          • Anonymous

            Which God? 

          • Old Bear

            There is only one GOD!!!!! and God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Gev

          • Anonymous

            Technically speaking there are something like 28000 different gods, so you only have a 1 in 28000 chance to be right. Better hope you are, because some of the other, older gods, make yours look like a small child throwing a fit when his friends don’t play the game he wants. 
            “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” Stephen Roberts.

          •  Wrong on two counts.
            1. When Thanatos comes for me on his pale horse to collect my soul, as an Atheist my soul will simply evaporate into nothingness. Read “On A Pale Horse” by Piers Anthony.
            2. I am a ginger, therefore I have no soul to begin with. If you need further explanation Google search Cartman and ginger.

          • Anonymous

            The great Flying Spaghetti Monster will not have anything bad to say about me, I’m a pretty nice guy. He will probably offer me a beer and shhow me to where the musicians are hanging out.

        • Tyke

           Your condemnation of Abraham is a very strange position for an alleged “Christian” to take.

        • Anonymous

          Man created many many gods over the eons of our existence, which one are you referring to? So if there was only one man and one woman, doesn’t that mean your “god” created incest too? Kinda’ sick if you ask me. 

          • Anonymous

            Man has created many, many gods. But only one God created man.

          • Anonymous

            So, every person born before god decided to send jesus to earth now burns forever in a lake of fire? All the native peoples over the world, who never heard the word of your god are as well? Why didn’t your god lay down these rules from the beginning, or just once in the entire history of the world appear before more than one nut job on a hill? I mean if your god is all powerful, omniscient, and what not, didn;t he know that all those people would be born and die before he could get the good word out? So your god purposefully made people, millions of people for thousands of years, just to burn in hell? Why does this god of yours deserve worship? You know with humanity connected as never before, it wouldn’t take much for the almighty to make a trip to earth, declare that he exists, and that you christians have it right, and he could stop all religious wars, but he doesn’t? Why well I can think of only 2 reasons.: 1.He won’t because he’s cruel and wants humans to continue to suffer, or 2. He cant because he doesn’t exist. If he is cruel, why does he deserve your worship, and if he doesnt exist, what will you base your hate and bigotry on? And don’t give me that free will BS either. If there is a god who can see all of time and knows mens fates before they were even conceived, then there can be no free will. 

          •  The god that is the true God with Jesus Christ.Not the many man made Gods.

          • Anonymous

            So if your god is the only true god, why wasn’t he the first god? What did it take thousands of years, and thousands of other gods to come and go before your god decided to make himself known? Why is the story of Jesus contained in other religious texts, under different names, for hundreds of years before the time of christ? Why was Horus, who was born of a virgin, baptized in a river, had 12 followers, was killed and resurrected 3 days later not considered the son of god?

          •  Oh… Oh… I know… I know… cause Horus is an awful name, I mean really who wants to follow a guy named Horus?

          • All gods are man made.

        • Anonymous

          In the story, Adam and Eve were not married.

          And by the way, haven’t you ever wondered who Cain married?

      • pick and choose…are you kidding me ? nobody on earth has picked and chosen any more than Christians who are gay and are in support of this hideous bill….

      • Anonymous

        If you are going to refer to those arrangements you have to read the New Testament as well. The Bible is taken as a whole.

    • Anonymous

      Apparently you haven’t been reading recent polls? It looks like the majority of Mainers do support same-gender marriage. 

      The institution of marriage has been trampled on immensely by heterosexuals with the divorce rate and number of people living together without a marriage contract. No one could mess up marriage as much as heterosexuals have done. They will not be content until they have the same rights and privileges that you have in regards to marriage. YOU will not be content until YOU have forced everyone to live by your belief system. Stop trying to shove your warped belief system down other Americans’ throats. 

      Go live your life and let others live theirs.

      • Anonymous

        Then divorce yourself from the Christian institution of Marriage you feel is so tainted and create an institution which you and all other like minded people/relationships can respect and then earn your own respect in turn. 

        “Go live your life and let others live theirs.”

        •  Yea, see the thing is, marriage in Maine has nothing to do with Christianity unless the couple CHOOSES to have their ceremony in a church. Marriage is a civil issue, not a religious one. Otherwise, how could a Justice of the Peace, ships captain, etc sign and validate that pesky State issued Marriage License. So the State is already separated from the Christian institution, and has been for a long time. SSM is a civil question, not a religious one.

          • Anonymous

            You are not changing the minds of Mainers who know that Marriage is a church institution.

          • Anonymous

            How is marriage a church institution? Please do explain that. I got married in my backyard with a Notary Public, no priest or minister in attendance.

          • Anonymous

            Is it truly possible that you are unaware of Christianity’s theological belief in the institution of Marriage? 

            It is impossible to “educate” you now but instead I will trust that truth will be revealed to you, itwasntmyidea, in many unexpected ways just as it is for all of us.  Have a great Maine day.

          • ” Christian theological belief” being the operative words. What makes your belief more right than the Buddhist theological view, or the Muslim theological view, or the Wiccan theological view? Christianity does not hold the rights to marriage.

          • Anonymous

            I notice you failed to answer the question. I’m an atheist, and I’m married. It didn’t involve any member of any clergy, and the ceremony took place on a lake shore. So am I not married just because you say marriage is a christain thing? How did people ever marry before the church told them how? What about the majority of the world that is not chirstian? Are they not allowed to marry? Can you answer one of these questions? Are you capable of using logic and reasoning to come up with a reasonable answer to even one of those questions?

          • Anonymous

            Incorrect. I answered your post but now am very aware that you are more interested in quarreling than debating. You are not interested in my knowledge for you already have all the answers and on that basis I will not offer it. Readers of these threads are well aware I am capable of knowledge and logic adequate to debate issues but where there is closeminded disrespect of another’s opinion no reply can be expected.  

            “Can I….?” Yes.
            Will I? …….No,  thanks.

          • Anonymous

            First, you didn’t answer my post, as I never asked you a question before. Second I see you are still unable to answer a single simple question. 

          • Wow, you are a pro at  avoiding answers. You must be a politcian. 

          • Anonymous

            It was my question jd was referring to, the one you didn’t/couldn’t answer.

          • Anonymous

            Well hells bells I didn’t want to live in your so called institution anyway! :)

          • Anonymous

            My wife and I were married by a Justice of the Peace. If you are so arrogant as to claim that we are somehow not married, come on over and say it to my face, and I’ll cheerfully punch you in the nose. Keep your prehistoric nonsensical beliefs to yourself, and keep them out of my government.

        • Tyke

           We have.

          That institution is called government issued civil marriage licenses. No religious affiliation, participation  or ceremony required.

          Thanks for playing.

          • Anonymous

            Then you feel no need to call your contract a marriage…..correct?

          • Tyke

             Why? The government calls it a civil marriage and always has. Unless you want to change the name of ALL marriages that question makes absolutely no sense.

          • Anonymous

            Do you now insist there is no separation of church and state?

          • Tyke

            What on earth does that have to do with the governmental issuance of a civil marriage license?

            I have insisted on nothing related to the separation of church and state in my prior comments, juts that a civil marriage license is just what is says it is. No less, no more. It does not include any religious statement or requirement and never has.

          • Anonymous

            There are readers out here who know the answer to your question. If you really want to know the answer you’ll find out but it won’t be from me.

          • Tyke

            In other words, you haven’t got a clue.

            OK

        • Anonymous

          Have you divorced yourself from the government’s legal institution (contract) of civil marriage?  Did you forgo a civil marriage license and marry your spouse in the eyes of God and your church alone?  

      • Anonymous

        True, they don’t deal well with logic (or live and let live, unless it concerns them). They’re angry and they’re scared and that makes them mean.

      •  “The polls” on this subject are not accurate.  People lie when they are asked about this issue.  The last initiative had early support according to “the polls” but it lost.

    • Kitchell

      Clergy may be protected but what about the religious rights of wedding photographers? wedding caterers? wedding cake bakers? that simply do not want to work at a wedding that is against their beliefs?  I would think they could still get sued for discrimination. There are a lot more rights that are being lost for the general public when you vote for gay marriage. people need to stop and think before voting.  This is a one-size fits all type of law that the gay agenda is imposing onto our traditional way of life.

      • Anonymous

        What right would be lost for the “general public” in voting for SSM?

      • Anonymous

        Yes, they all are up for legal action against them if they refuse due to their one core beliefs. It’s already happening around the country, and some are actually being target for lawsuits on purpose. It will happen all over Maine if SSM is allowed. 

        A private business should be allowed to operate within the moral bounds of the owners of the business. A private business owner should be able to refuse service to those that directly oppose their own beliefs. Of course, if the private business denies just because they don’t like someone for what they are or who they are, without regard to personal moral beliefs, then their refusal may be actual discrimination. 

        Still, a staunch Christian should be allowed to refuse service to a gay couple without repercussions. Just like a morally based private business owner should be allowed to refuse services to a Satanist or escort service. 

        • Anonymous

          a “good” christian business  should be allowed to refuse to provide service to bi racial couples also, right?
          you bigots have all the answers–

        • Anonymous

          Right! A staunch christian should be allowed to refuse service to a gay couple! Just like everyone who finds raping little kids, genocide, bigotry, hate, and corruption to be morally reprehensible should be allowed to refuse service to christians. 

        •  I’m OK with that as long as I can refuse service to anyone who claims to be Christian, capitalist or Democrat… I’d guess that would cover about 90% of the population.

  • Anonymous

    Plain English. What’s wrong with it?

  • Anonymous

    Those “gays” that you want “to move to another state” are your neighbors, your friends, the people that deliver your mail, put the fire out at your home. take you to the hospital when you are sick, check you out at the market, sell you your new home or car…they are your fellow citizen and pay taxes just like you do.

  • Anonymous

    I see nothing wrong with the wording of the question  “Do you want to allow same-sex couples to marry?” as suggested by Secretary Summer. Any time a question is place on a ballot the wording should be simple an straight word. Both sides have already agreed that the religious exemption isn’t legally necessary so why muddy the waters. Beside, when it fails to pass, which it will, SSM proponants will have something to hang their hats on when they bring it back in two years.

    • Anonymous

      I think they want the words about religious exemptions because the other side does frequently lie and is known to break our campaign laws.

    • Anonymous

      Here is a suggestion….

      SSM proponents agree to the simple wording in return for SSM opponents not claiming churches, etc…will be “forced” to perform SSM ceremonies in print, TV, radio, internet, flier, etc…advertising, statement, etc…

  • Anonymous

    Two observations cp444

    You keep some very unusual company, and

    Who is “Colson”??

    •  Colson is a Special Agent for the Strategic Hazard Intervention Espionage Logistics Directorate, other wise known as S.H.I.E.L.D. shhh it’s supposed to be a secret.

  • Anonymous

    too many bigots live in maine- they need to move

  • Anonymous

    ya know, its kind of pathetic, all these anti equal rights postings.. you must have a pretty poor marriage if someone else getting married impacts on yours so much.. perhaps instead of posting inane comments, you should concentrate on saving your marriage because its pretty weak.. BTW – I’m a 60 yr old hetero happily married grandfather.. I don’t worry about someone elses marriage hurting mine..guess my marriage is stronger than all the anti equal rights posters marriages

  • Mr_Spuddy

    THERE OUGHT TO BE A LIMIT AS TO HOW MANY TIMES A PERSON CAN POST ABOUT THE SAME STORY.  

    •  Gosh you are so right.  The bangor Daily doesn’t have enough rules curtailing speech, it needs a few more.

  • Anonymous

    It will not matter how it is worded. It will not pass.

    • Anonymous

      then it will come up again and  again and again until it does— don’t like gay marriage, then don’t have one or go to a church that performs one, its that simple..

      •  Agreed, because NO never means no. It only means try again!

        • Anonymous

          Change Maine’s constitution if you don’t referendums.

          • “if you don’t referendums.”

            Either I missed something or your brain skipped a beat.

          • Anonymous

            Simple typo. Not egregious, especially not compared to the lies and hate you’re spreading today.

        • Anonymous

          How about because civil rights belong to all people, not just the ones who are just like you. It has come up many times in history before, and it usually takes awhile to get the right thing done, but women are not chattel any more, and they are allowed to vote (imagine that, Women treated like actual people!) People are no longer segregated by color, because they are still people, no matter the amount of melanin in their skin. Equal rights should be a given, especially in America where “… all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  Some day ignorance and bigotry, like yours, will be wiped off the face of this planet.

          • Get off your high horse, I was just stating a fact. Nothing you said changed the fact that No only means try again. That’s what you are doing, trying again. WHAT is the big deal?

            If the majority vote in favor, it will pass. If not, you will continue to try until it does.

          •  If it does pass, and the legal laws of the referendum are used next year to try and strike it down, will we be hearing this same argument from you? What about if repealing fails that first time and it is back on the ballot in 2014? No one is breaking any rules by having this on the referendum every year for the next 20.

        • Tyke

           TABOR, the son of TABOR, the son of the son of TABOR and the ever popular – hey let’s try it AGAIN TABOR.

          Maine style democracy allows, and even encourages, citizen initiatives.  It is a core part of who we are. I did not agree with any of the TABOR or TABOR-lite bills but I fully and absolutely support the right of folks with other opinions to get them onto the ballot, each time they did,  and anytime in the future when they can get sufficient support to do so.

          What  scares the pants off  the anti marriage equality crowd are polls of younger voters and the 90%+ vote for gay marriage at U. Maine last time.

          Marriage equality will be the law of the land. I hope it is this time because otherwise I may not live to see it happen and it will be a wonderful day when it does.

        • Anonymous

          ya know- be careful what you wish for– if  you like to vote on someone elses rights, they may just be voting on yours some day

          •  My rights get trampled on every day thanks to the incessant march of Progressive-ism!
            But I realize, in or society, majority rules – like it or not.

          • Anonymous

            “in or society” wow your brain must have skipped a beat huh?

  • Anonymous

    How about all of you moving to an island somewhere so you can live happily ever after and we the normal people won’t have to hear about it every stinking day!   It is your right to live like that if you choose but it is my right not to have to hear about it every time I pick up a paper or turn on the news because I don’t believe in it, IT OFFENDS ME so keep it to yourself!

    • Anonymous

       Your comment, OFFENDS me so keep it to yourself. I’m a 54 year old heterosexual, married women, gays getting married hurts,my marriage not.

    • Joseph Willingham

      So, Quartz and others, you have anything to say about this blatant display of hatred and abuse?

      As for “believing” in it, moosepoops, no one is asking you to.  Homosexuality exists whether you believe in it or not and, since we live in a (sort of) free country, the fact that something offends you doesn’t mean it has to go away.  There is no right to be protected from offensive material or topics.

      As soon as gay people are treated like everyone else, there will be no reason for you to hear about it every day.

      •  Does that go for Gay Pride parades too? Seems California has SSM but still has plenty of in-your-face gay pride parades.

        • Anonymous

          What’s the relevance? Maine has gay pride parades and it has nothing to do with marriage. Keep your bigotry to yourself. It’s getting in my face and I don’t like it.

          •  Since you obviously missed it the first time, here you go:

            The only thing strange here is you! You seem to take some strange sick
            special delight in responding to my posts. You are a person in desperate
            need of a hobby! Or a meaningful life!

          • Tyke

              I don’t believe you have exclusive rights to post opinions or replies here.

          •  I don’t believe your opinion matters to me, either.

        • Anonymous

          What about all of the heterosexual pride we see on TV and in the movies every day flaunting their sexuality? 

          •  Yea, must have missed all that, but then I wasn’t looking for it either!

        • Guest

          It appears that you missed that whole messy referendum on California’s gay marriage.
          They DON’T have SSM!

          Every St. Pat’s day, there is a redneck drunken parade in South Boston. Most of us have just grown tired of their obnoxious ‘Irish Pride’ crap and ignore it.

          •  THAT was my point! You are the only one to get it! Unlike most on this forum, you have a brain!

        • How about society makes a deal? SSM passes, and no more in your face parades, as long as the churches makes their buildings look like regular buildings, cause with the steeple and all the church is all in peoples face about it.(I can also see how far their faith goes that god loves them and looks out for them by the lightning rods atop the steeples)  Oh and replace the Sunday TV services with good ol fashioned Bugs Bunny cartoons, and football pregame shows. We have a deal?

          • Tyke

            And if demonstrations of love and affection are  offensive from one group they need to be disallowed for all.

            No kissing your spouse goodbye anymore and no holding hands (ick).

          • About time you showed everyone your TRUE colors!

          • Tyke

            I have been married to the same woman for over 50 years.

            Never strayed either. As true as true can be.

          • Works for me! Bet that surprises the heII out of you!

            Except, as everyone knows, the Roadrunner beats Bugs Bunny any day!

            Oh no! I just started another heated debate! Will the hate never end?!

          • Sweet, and yes I’ll swap out Roadrunner for Bugs. Now we just need 10% of the number of people who voted in the last gubernatorial election to agree with us and we will be on the next referendum.

    • Anonymous

      how about you moving down south where you would fit in better, i’m tired of people proclaiming they are normal, when they aren’t . normal is minding your own business.
      i wonder how many of the anti equal rights people have been divorced, lived together without being married, fornicated without the sanctity of marriage.  for some of you normal is a 1/2 gallon of allens on a friday night
      dont like gay marriage? don’t have one or go to a church that does, it’s that simple, (probably too simple for some)

    • Anonymous

      Hey, don’t steal ideas! That’s not right. Hitler already did this, he rounded up the gays and tried exterminating them. He failed though, so you probably would too.

      • Joseph Willingham

        Maybe that electric fence is the key.  Put us behind that electric fence and we’ll all die out.  But as Kevin stated, those derned straight people will still be making gay babies, so who’s REALLY to blame here!??!

      • Anonymous

         Apparently you can read but have a problem understanding what you read.   I do not give a damn how they live as long as I don’t have to see it in the news every day!  You do notice it is not people constantly making headlines protesting against them!  When I see a small news article about a young child who was abused or killed by someone stuck in a back page and a front page article about same sex marriages it appalls me!

        •  Come on Moosepoops, if you take away their ability to keep this front-and-center, you kill all their fun. After all, it’s not just a way of life, it’s a movement!

          You MUST be tolerant to their position, or they will beat you until you are!

          • Anonymous

            i’m pretty tolerant of bigots, I haven’t beaten any..yet

          •  So when did you stop? Do you intend to continue beating any in the future? Sounds a tad like you are bigoted against bigots! Oh, the intolerance!

        • Anonymous

          Dude, you said you wanted gays to be sent away to an island. You said they’re abnormal. That’s incredibly hateful and like I said, it’s been done before. Trying to group people that you don’t like together and then get rid of them? Come on man. These people just want the same rights you already enjoy. Sorry that’s such a bother to you.

        • Anonymous

          So you would rather read about a child being hurt? You are sick. 

        • Anonymous

          Perhaps if other (un) Americans would stop trying to discriminate against them, they wouldn’t be on the front page. They could be free to go live their lives. But it’s the so-called Christians who keep this front and center while they tell horrible lies and try to keep people stirred up. They are deviant and are the real problem here. Tell them to go away, let this pass and then it will be out of the news.

          As long as Christians lie and distort the truth, those from the GBLT community will continue to defend themselves in public forums from the lies told by the Christians.

        • pbmann

          Allow same sex marriage and it will no longer be on the front page because it will not be news unless people like you continue to make it news.

    •  IT OFFENDS ME that people are still having babies when the world is so obviously overpopulated.  ALSO I would guess that a person using the screen-name “moosepoops” is not really worried about “offending” others.

    • Guest

      LOL….so you don’t have the personal strength to avoid reading something?  It is your right to change the channel or turn the page.  It is not your right to define what the news media reports.  Sexual orientation is not a choice.  As Americans we have every right to fight for fairness and equality.  The BDN is only doing it’s job by reporting on this high interest, yet contentious issue.  Sadly, you are blind to the fact that many gay people lead lives as normal as any other person.  Several parts of your statement are OFFENSIVE, but I’m not saying you should keep your ignorance to yourself.

    • Anonymous

      Might as well get the heck over it offending you because if it doesn’t happen to pass this time, it will be up again you can bet on that.
      How about all the small minded bigots move to an island somewhere so “we the normal people” don’t have to listen to your bigoted ranting?
      Life would be so much easier if more people could open their hearts and minds and accept the fact that we are all human, and we all deserve the same equal rights and protections afforded by marriage.

    • Anonymous

      Yeah, because we only want to hear about heterosexuals.

      What is a “normal” person? Please define.

      • Tyke

         Methinks a beer belly and gun rack are involved …

        … and only white folks with no foreign accents or foreign sounding names either.

    • Anonymous

      Do you want to know the secret to not having to hear about it all the time? It’s a big one so listen closely. 
      Stop denying people the same civil liberties that everyone is entitled to. I know you probably have a good christian reason for your bigotry, but remember YOUR god is the one who says slavery, murder, genocide, rape, stoning children, are all A-OK in his book. I’m sorry my friend, but this is America, and the America I grew up in was a land that was founded by people who held “these truths to be self evident,  that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” I didn’t see the part where it said “except the gays”.

      • Tyke

         Well it did kind of say, “except the blacks” at first.

        But we fixed that.

      • Did you catch the part about “all men”?

        That right there is half the problem!

  • Guest

    it should be: 
    Do you hate equality? 
    Yes – No

    •  YES! Somehow with equality, I’m always on the losing side!

      • Anonymous

        I find it so strange that allow others to be equal somehow makes you less equal. Or giving others the same freedoms you enjoy somehow makes you feel less free. It’s really bizarre. It’s like you need special rights in order to feel good about yourself and your place in society.

        •  The only thing strange here is you! You seem to take some strange sick special delight in responding to my posts. You are a person in desperate need of a hobby! Or a meaningful life!

          • Tyke

             Then stop posting.

            duh

            You do not have exclusive rights to comment or reply here.

          • Must be a delight, your being that superior to me! I’m sure wolfndeer appreciates your injecting yourself here.

      • Anonymous

        I get the feeling you might be on the losing side either way.

        •  You are correct, as a white, heterosexual male over 50, I lose no matter what happens! We are the easiest to dismiss and the brunt of every joke.

          • Joseph Willingham

            That’s a fallacy.  Old white straight men are still very much in control.  At the same time, why do you think you lose if old white straight men aren’t the only ones who are equal?  Isn’t it America about all men being created equal?

          •  Ok, I can see his argument that old white men are always the bad guy because that is the stereotype. Where I disagree is they are the brunt of every joke. I mean how many times does a joke start, “Two white middle aged men walk into a bar…”

          •  Sounds like there isn’t much ‘regular’ about you if you have to ask those questions.

          • Joseph Willingham

            I’m not a regular guy if I think everyone should be equal and not just all straight white men to be equal?  I don’t understand.

          • pbmann

            Which demographic has the most wealth, the most power?  Which demographic makes up the vast majority of CEO’s, members of both the Senate and House, all but one President, all Vice-Presidents…. I could go on but I hope you get my point.

            ps.  I am a white male who is almost 50.

          • Well when you put it that way, no wonder we are targets for everyone! How dare we!!! The very nerve of us! We don’t deserve any of the things you listed. We are vermin, vermin I tell you!

            Doesn’t change the fact that in everyone’s eyes, we are the scum of the earth for no other reason then what we had the misfortune to be born as.

            Sound familiar???

          • pbmann

            No, not all rich white men are considered the scum of the Earth, just the one’s who put greed and power ahead of everything else but that is not limited to white males.

            You stated as a white male over 50 you lose everytime.  What have you lost everytime.  Name all of the things you have lost because you are a white male over 50.  I am a white male over 48 and I would be hard pressed to name anything that we have lost, others have gained things but we have not lost anything.

          • Tyke

             I am a white heterosexual male over 80, and as such I recommend that you stop whining and blaming others for YOUR feelings of inadequacy.

            Giving rights to others does not diminish yours or mine.

          •  As an octogenarian, I can easily see why you took my comments out of context. Since I do respect my elders, I will refrain from commenting on your post.

  • Anonymous

    God forbid we vote on something that everyone can understand where no means no and yes would mean yes.   Sorry didn’t mean to bring religion into this. 

    •  I know what you mean, wasn’t there a logging ban like 10-15 years ago that you had to vote no to agree and yes to disagree? They wound up making it a three part question on the ballot or something didn’t they?

  • Anonymous

    A better question would be:

    “Do you want a legal union based on intrinsically evil acts (that is sodomy) and performs the opposite function of marriage, to grant the same rights and privileges as marriage?” 

    • Anonymous

      Women do sodomy to

      • Guest

        And a lot of guys love ’em for it!  :)

        • Anonymous

           LMAO! I love your comment

    • Joseph Willingham

      I know some straight married couples that engage in sodomy….

      • Glad to hear all your window-peeking is paying off!

        • Joseph Willingham

          Gross!  I do NOT watch that kind of nasty straight stuff!  But I do know that oral sex is sodomy and straight people engage in that.  No window-peeking necessary!

          • Anonymous

            Since when has oral sex become sodomy? LOL!

    • Anonymous

      Why must so many of the opponents of SSM focus on the sexual acts?  What matters what two adults choose to do in the privacy of their own bedrooms?  Oh, by the way, plenty of heterosexual couples engage in what you describe.

      • Being gay or lez It is not the natural order of life;  They are sexual deviats!  nothing to do with religion as the perverts try to push!  the answer is NO girls and it will not change…..I know something we can give the deviats.  you should have no “special rights”   

        • Anonymous

           you should have no “special rights”   OK if thats true than why should handy people have special rights  ?  like parking spaces  ect  ?

          • Guest

            ===

          • Anonymous

            No matter how you spin it its still a special right . Its given a special rights to a group of people . you my not like what i say but its true if you really think about it

          • Guest

            ….

        • pbmann

          Why should married people have special rights that I don’t have because I am not married?

          Why should religious people have special rights tha tI don’t have because I am not religious?

          Those are both life style choices so why are they protected by law from discrimination? 

          Maybe because it is the right thing to do, as is allowing same sex couples the same right to marry their loved one that a opposite sex couple has.  This is not a “Special Right”, only allowing opposite sex couples to marry would be considered a “Special Right” because it grants them something not allowed to everyone.

        • Anonymous

          Protecting one another with civil laws is also not the natural order of life. So by your logic we should eliminate every benefit of civil marriage for everyone?

        • Guest

          ///////
           

    •  Please tell me what is “evil” about sodomy?  I (as a Yankee) always believed that what consenting adults do in their own house is totally their own business.  Is that view “evil” in your world?

      • Anonymous

        How are AIDS and other diseases spread?

        • Anonymous

          Heterosexuals engage in sodomy all the time and yet you’re selectively persecuting gays for it. Must be because you hate them.

          • Tyke

            More like fear.

            The most virulent and outspoken homophobes have been shown to be much, much more likely to have latent homosexual feelings that frighten the dickens out of them.

            https://my.psychologytoday.com/files/u47/Henry_et_al.pdf

            The results of this study indicate that individuals who score in the homophobic range and admit negative affect toward homosexuality demonstrate significant sexual arousal to male homosexual erotic stimuli.

          • ChuckGG

            I remember one kid in high school that was fairly homophobic but not violent, at least.  I shrugged him off until about 10 years later and I got a telephone call from him.  He finally had divorced his wife and came out. 

            Homophobia affects more than the homophobic person.  How many innocent wives have been living a lie just because their husband won’t admit who he really is?

            I’ve seen it countless times.  Especially back in the 1960’s.  It seems to me there were a lot more drunk husbands back then.  They came home, sat in a chair, and drank themselves to death.  They couldn’t get divorced and they couldn’t hook-up with Bob, down the street, who also drank away his problems.

            What a sad, sad existence.

            Thankfully, times have changed.  Too bad some are anchored in the past.

        • Anonymous

          Disgusting ignorance. Are you really going to pretend that heterosexuals don’t contract and spread those same diseases and viruses? God, so pathetic and hateful.

        • Anonymous

          Do a search an find out how aids stared it was strigh people that spread aid in Africa

        • Anonymous

          Well clearly only gay people can contract a STD…..no heterosexuals EVER get an STD……you need to read a book sweetie or find one with pictures or something because your question dates back to the 1950’s.  Oy.

        • Anonymous

          You really aren’t ignorant enough to be suggesting that Gay = AIDS are you? Or sodomy = AIDS? AIDS or Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, is 
          a disease in which there is a severe loss of the body’s cellular immunity, greatly lowering the resistance to infection and malignancy. It has NOTHING to do with being gay or straight. You can “acquire” it by any unprotected sexual act with a person carrying the virus, a tainted blood transfusion, a used drug needle… You should probably stop posting now, your ignorance is showing. 

        • pbmann

          Many ways, of which only one is thru intercourse.  You do realize that the vast majority of AIDS cases in the world are heterosexuals who caught it thru heterosexual intercourse.

        • pbmann

          What other diseases are you talking about? 

          Flu, the common cold, Diabetes, Cancer, Heart Disease or what?

        •  You can’t get those by hetro sex?  Gee am I misinformed.

          • Anonymous

            Heterosexual contact is the #1 cause of the pandemic of AIDS in Africa.

            Anti-gays are still trying to use AIDS as a weapon with which to attack LGBT Americans, conveniently ignoring the fact that lesbian Americans have the lowest HIV rate of all.

    • Anonymous

      Seems that you are fixated on sodomy which heterosexuals also engage in. Why?

    • Anonymous

      You obsess over gay sex more than anyone I know, and I’m gay.

      The opposite function of marriage is separation, by the way. So your question isn’t better, it’s ignorant nonsense.

  • Joseph Willingham

    You should be a writer for the Emrich campaign.  I bet you’ll sway thousands of people to vote no to SSM!

    • Anonymous

      Thanks, Regular Joe.

      We must all do our part to remove this curse from our society. One voice is worth no more than any other in God’s eyes.

      All that matters is God’s truth, as revealed in the Bible, and through his Divine Son, Jesus.

      • Anonymous

        keep your bible to your self, laddie , you want to live under a theocratic government , move to iran.
        just another hypocritical pseudo chrisitan

        •  I put my bible in the outhouse where the Sears catalog used to hang.  the pages are softer.

          • Anonymous

            So you see people, that same sex marriage is in essence, the opposite of marriage, and you see the madness of their hatred for the things of God. 

            Same sex “marriage” carried out in a church, is in fact, a Satanic ritual.

            Thank you Mark, for helping the public to see that.

          • Anonymous

            a satanic ritual? simply a lie

          • Anonymous

            A Satanic ritual? Are you serious? Explain that one if  you can please, can’t wait to hear this….

          •  Actually if you read my posts you will find that I oppose State sanctioned marriages. All of them.

          • Joseph Willingham

            That’s too bad that you think that.  When you make statements like that, you’re being disrespectful to the gay people of faith, too….

      • Guest

        The sky is falling, the sky is falling!!

      • Which of the 8,000 gods do you refer too? What makes you think that your god is the right god? My god is just as real as yours, we have the same story of a virgin birth, the son of my god understands evil because he, for a time, was evil, but in the end was redeemed. The son and grandson of my god were bringers of peace. Your Christian god has brought forth nothing but violence and hate. My god is better than your god, so there :)-

  • Millicent

    Liars, drug addicts, drunks, cheats, thieves, and sexual perverts are mostly heterosexual. Proven by the fact that gays are a minority. Only 3.5 % of the US population is openly gay. Who knows what the real numbers are, as there are many people who won’t come out and admit it out of fear for their lives. 

    •  Honest question; If it’s only 3.5%, why do they call themselves mainstream or normal? It would seem they are anything but mainstream or normal.

      • Anonymous

        Just because something is uncommon, it doesn’t make it abnormal. Do you run around screeching that blonds and redheads are abnormal?

        •  I don’t go around screeching ANYTHING! I leave that to Liberals.

          I guess when I ask an honest question, I should expect the ideologues to pounce.

        • Millicent

          us left handers were branded the work of the devil for a very long time….now we’re taking over the world ;)

          •  I am a left handed redhead, does that make me like a super-minority?

          • Guest

            10110000

          •  Lol yes, we are the ones who are in our “right” mind.

          • Guest

            :)

      • Tyke

         Do you refer to left handed people as not mainstream and abnormal?

        •  No, but I do refer to those that ask idiotic questions as abnormal. That is until I consider the source.

  • Anonymous

    No they don’t. You’re making an argument against marriage because if a gay woman married a man, they wouldn’t be in love. Isn’t that the foundation of marriage? 

    Further, you can’t say they already have the right to marry. You could say the same thing about a ban on interracial marriage. Everyone has the right to marry, you just have to marry within your race. These kinds of bans are designed to target specific individuals and it’s discrimination.

    Also, enough with your selective highlighting. What about that teacher caught with kiddie porn this week? What about those straight parents who allowed children to throw a party with drugs and alcohol? All in Maine and all more recent than your ridiculous example. 

  • Guest

    “We know from what has happened in other countries such as Canada and Europe that some of those things happened after marriage laws were changed,” he said Wednesday.
    I didn’t know Europe was a country, and is the wording of their constitutions separating their churches and government worded the same as ours?   Another baseless argument that it could even happen under our laws.

    • Anonymous

      I agree.  Why not look at what has happened in other states in THIS country where SSM is legal?  I suspect they don’t because what they are claiming will happen has not happened.

      • Guest

        I live in Mass, and the sky hasn’t fallen in yet!  Nobody notices it anymore. We just yawn over the issue. I know that I’m in the bluest of the blue States (I’m center right and outa place), but even in the blue collar areas people have a so-what attitude.

        •  Actually Massachusetts is NOT the bluest of blue States.I would say Hawaii has that distinction.  Massachusetts voters selected  Reagan (twice) They had five Republican Governors in a row The founder of the John Birch Society owned both Worcester newspapers. Louise Day Hicks (former Boston City Councilwoman) was to the right of segregationist George Wallace, and Albert “Dapper” O’Neil carried a gun with him to Boston City Council meetings.   Massachusetts was the last State to end the practice of discrimination in public schools. The Commonwealth had a law on the books until 1976 which allowed parents to place their children in “reform school” for being stubborn. Massachusetts voters elected Scott Brown. 

          The “liberal Massachusetts” myth can be sold only to those who never lived there. 

          • Guest

            Because we’ve always had Dems on Beacon Hill., we try to balance the powers. We’ve now had Patrick for 6 tears.

            Hicks and Dapper (carrying a gun is not just for the right; he was proof of that)) were decades ago. We’ve also elected ones like Frank and Kennedy for just as long. Scott Brown is considered a RINO by many and was elected largely to stop Obamacare.

            Reform schools hadn’t been used for years before the revocation 36 years ago (we need them back).

            The schools weren’t segregated. Everyone just attended neighborhood schools before we started the busing from one end of town to the other. More ancient history.

            Everything you mentioned except for Brown was at least a generation ago. In the 35 years i’ve lived in Mass, I’ve lived through that history and have witnessed the groundswell of changes from the demise of the Combat Zone to becoming an unabashed ‘Haven State’.

            But thanks for the historical trivia for “only for those that never lived (t)here.”

          •  Opinions need to be less emotional to be credible.  There are some fairly conservative folks in Massachusetts.

          • Anonymous

            Conservatives don’t oppose marriage equality, they consider it a matter of “Equal protection under the law.”

            But, yes, there are still a few remaining reactionary anti-gays in Massachusetts.  They’ve been jumping up and down ever since, repeating the same old anti-gay lies we’ve all heard thousands of times–and same gender Massachusetts couples are still getting married every week.

            And Massachusetts has the LOWEST divorce rate of any US State.  It seems marriage equality is good for ALL married couples there.

          • Guest

            You’ll find that I’m nothing if not pragmatic.

            I’m one of the ‘right of centers’ in Mass: socially liberal as long as we can realistically afford it. My other home on the South Shore has a very fiscally conservative blue collar populace that is more the norm than anybody that calls into Howie Carr or comments on the Boston Herald site. Just like this site, people love to give blustery he-man remarks in anonymity.

            We just are always overcome at the voting booths by Cambridge/ Brookline/Newton Dems and the thousands of idealistic students that float through.

  • Anonymous

    For once there is a referendum question stated in a simple, to the point way that a voter can understand, and someone wants it to be more complicated? 

  • sounds like a simple question to me.  Easily understandable even to the semi-illiterate .  Also one I which could answer “yes’

    The proposed “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?”
    I would answer “No” because I believe the State should get out of the marriage business altogether. 

  • Obviously the question is just to straight forward, simple ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. They need a few double negatives in there to muddy it up. Enough legal-ease so that ‘Yes’ means yes, and ‘No’ means yes.

    Nice try, advocates.  Afraid to sink or swim on the simple merits of the argument?

    • Anonymous

      I think they’re afraid that the anti-gay marriage side will lie and break our campaign laws again. They claimed churches would be forced to oversee gay marriage and that’s not true — that’s a lie. Those kinds of lies are what muddies the waters.

  • Anonymous

    I personally don’t care on way or another, but didn’t the voters in Maine say NO twice already?

    • Anonymous

      The legislature said yes, then it was vetoed. This is a referendum. It’s different.

    • Joseph Willingham

      No.  Voters weighed in only once, and that was 3 years ago.

      • Anonymous

         And the voters of Maine said NO.

        • Anonymous

          And guess what, there is 3 years worth of new voters and plenty more that have change their minds. If you don’t like that we’re doing this, either get over it or try and change Maine’s constitution as it currently allows for referendums.

          • Anonymous

             Like I said, I do not personally care, but you can’t keep going back every 3 years because you don’t like the outcome. So I say the same to you, if you don’t like the outcome of the Maine Voter saying No, get over it. And re-wording the question on the REFERENDUMS, from a simple yes, no question. Which is what this article is all about is the only thing I have a problem with.

          • Anonymous

            Well if you want to get specific about it, the law was about to be enacted, so the anti-gay marriage side collected signatures to put it on the ballot. This time the pro-gay marriage side collected signatures to put it on the ballot.

            As the law stands, people don’t have to get over it. They just have to collect 50,000 or so signatures and put it on the ballot.

          • Anonymous

            and we all know how well leaving civil rights up to the individual states has worked in this country…..epic failure.  In 1967 (Loving v. Virginia) when SCOTUS had to rule on if black Americans and white Americans could legally marry (because allowing interracial marriage would somehow redefine and ruin marriage and the nation- sound familiar?) there were still 16 states that refused to allow interracial couples to marry. 

            In 1967  the majority of each states population believed that interracial marriage was wrong.  In Mississippi at the recent republican primary- a poll was taken and 58% of the people polled still believed that interracial marriage should still be illegal and this is 2012.  

            Just because the ‘majority’ of a state votes one way- that doesn’t make it the legal or right thing.  Last time I knew we weren’t supposed to vote on each other’s civil rights…..that’s why they are called rights.  As Americans we should all be afforded the same equal protections under the laws.

          • Anonymous

            “Like I said, I do not personally care”

            And yet you post your “I want to hurt LGBT Mainers” again and again…

    • Anonymous

      Twice????

      • Anonymous

         I stand corrected, Maine voter’s said No once.

        • Anonymous

          And this time we are going to stand with the US Constitution.  I’m sorry to learn you HATE our Constitution, ihunt.

    • Anonymous

      Nope, they did not.

    • Anonymous

      It doesn’t matter how many times voters vote to violate the United States Constitution’s guarantee of Equal Protection Under the Law.

  • Anonymous

    The argument that SSM is all about “equality” is totally bogus.

    The Maine statutes currently have numerous marriage prohibitions in them.

    If this is truly about “equal rights” than a man ought to be able to marry his sister, mother, dog and so on.  

    Why selectively strike down just this “certain prohibition” while maintaining all the others?

    I believe this is all about “forced approval”, through “legislated respect”, of a lifestyle many of us find abhorrent! 

    In the end I believe the practioners are only trying to convince themselves that what they do is OK.
     

    • Anonymous

      No, I think it’s more like when a committed couple of 4 decades faces immense estate taxes to the tune of $350,000 because the law doesn’t recognize their marriage or when a spouse is denied hospital visitation rights to their dying counterpart. You can deny that these things happen all you want and just pretend it’s about other issues – but you’re lying to yourself and history won’t treat you kindly.

      •  Dude, $350,000 in estate taxes!?!? I mean yea it totally stinks that you have to pay it, but congrats on your success in life, and yes you should totally have the tax protection marriage provides.

        • Anonymous

          Sorry for the confusion! I was referring to a recent case in Boston that ruled DOMA as unconstitutional. http://www.scribd.com/doc/96208124/Edie-Windsor-wins-her-DOMA-case

          A woman died and her female spouse of decades was required to pay 350,000 in estate taxes. For heterosexuals, the surviving spouse doesn’t pay taxes on the estate. Gay people? Very different.

    • Anonymous

      Let me guess you’re  a white guy that has never been denied ‘equality’ once in his life so of course you think SSM isn’t about equality.  And by all means if you wish to marry your sister, mother or family pet- knock yourself out (of course you will have to get them to agree and give consent and I’m not sure how you would get legal consent from the family pet) unfortunately it just won’t be considered a legal ‘marriage’ or recognized under the laws of this state or the federal government.  You can, however, legally marry your first cousin in this state as well as in 18 other states. Which means that of course you can’t marry your gay first cousin but you can marry your first straight cousin.  Pffffffft.

    • Anonymous

      1. You are wrong. It is 100% about equality.
      2. You are legally allowed to marry certain family members.
      3. Dogs, children, trees etc are not capable of entering into a legally binding contract. 

    • Anonymous

      If you cannot argue against gay marriage without bringing up incest and bestiality, you don’t have an argument against gay marriage.

      Seriously, you haven’t actually made one point why it’s acceptable for our government to deny access to civil marriage to same sex couples, and that’s what we are asking for.

    • Anonymous

      Would you say the same thing about strigh people that leave all there money  an there estate to there dog or cat   ? Those people must be mentelly  ill

    • Anonymous

      Anti-gays have been repeating those same anti-gay lies since Anita Bryant.  And where’s Anita Bryant now, countryboy?

  • Anonymous

    Are you really going to go down that oath again? Are you going to bring up a 1920 California murder case and try and make a link to SSM again? Are you going to try and say it is worse than Pol Pot, Stalin Hitler and Jim Jones again?

  • Anonymous

    I would love to have someone explain to me how the legalization of gay marriage will adversely affect them personally.   Anybody? 

    •  It doesn’t. So the opponents have to make stuff up. The Christians fear they will lose membership if it is socially acceptable to be gay, and SSM will make homosexuality a societal norm. So the good Christian who is secretly gay and fears coming out because of the backlash from their church and society will no longer have that fear and be all openly gay. Besides, think of all the money the Church and Republicans will lose when society accepts gay people and there will be no more need for their “Pray Away the Gay” camps. The non-christian bigots were just raised to think homosexuality is wrong and they will never be ok with it, so they need to make up world ending stories to prevent it from happening. It’s not their fault, they were raised that way.

  • Guest

    Unfortunately, the need for the extended wording on the ballot is on full display in this forum.  Despite state law and the 1st amendment, some people do not understand that no religious institution would be forced to recognize or perform a same-sex marriage.  Personally, I believe the approved wording highlights the fact that we are going to be voting on another person’s civil rights.  Religious arguments aside, I don’t see how this boils down to anything other than some people that just hate/dislike gay people, and enjoy having the control/power trip of deciding another person’s rights.  Your marriage must be pretty weak, if my marriage would somehow affect or harm yours, or your ability to marry.  It just seems as though opponents need to feel they are simply better than, or more worthy of a specific right than another person.  Sad, because all law-abiding Americans deserve the right to marry.

  • Anonymous

    I got this from another paper You can’t sell your daughter into marriage for three cows and a goat, as suggested in the Bible, proving that we’ve already redefined marriage at least once.  We also changed it so the definitions is no longer, “One man and a number of women.”  Several thousand years later, we even went to the extreme of redefining marriage so that the woman was no longer the property of her husband.  The truth is that marriage has always been an evolving social construct whose definition has changed repeatedly to reflect the increasing recognition of the rights of all people, not just those of heterosexual men.
    Flag

    • Anonymous

      Nicely stated…..I would like to add that the statement ‘one man and one woman’ is a bunch of crap-ola.   With this country’s divorce rate being what it is- the saying should state ‘one man and one woman….at a time.’

  • ChuckGG

    Geez, Louise!  People are getting edgy on this issue.  I’ll throw in my two-cents.

    Hey, I happen to agree with Conley:

    “Conley said Wednesday that the so-called religious exemption isn’t legally necessary because the religious exemption is covered by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  Supporters conceded at the press conference that that was true.”

    Let’s me add a caveat.  This is true in the USofA.  However, in other countries, the same degree of religious freedom does not exist, hence the “horror” stories by the religious crowd that those same issues will occur here.  Well, they won’t.  Just get over it.

    So, legally we don’t need the religion-exemption phrase.  But, Conley knows full-well the public is dumb as a box of rocks when it comes to legalese.  He is hoping the religious exemption remains out of the ballot question so his supporters, combined with the lies on their website, will prompt people to vote against SSM just because of the religious fears.

    My vote is to keep the question as close to the original petition question as possible and retain some form of religion-exemption.  I do not know if this can be legally done because stating an exemption might imply it does not already exist when, of course, it does.

    These attempts by Conley and others are smoke-screens and a last-ditch effort to sway the public toward their side.  This is deceptive.  For a crowd that is ultra-religious, I never have heard as many lies, misrepresentations, and unsubstantiated innuendo.  It is cheesy, low-class, and reeks of desperation.  I am surprised they have not said SSM causes cancer in lab rats.  Truth matters not for this crowd.

    The ballot question should read clearly and honestly what will and will not happen.  If it does this, the chances of SSM passing in Maine is strong and it will be because of honesty, and that would be refreshing for a change.

    • Anonymous

      I think you just insulted rocks that live in boxes…..

  • Anonymous

    For the folks who continue the “well, if we let men marry men, women marry women, then what’s next? Men marrying horses, women marrying dolphins” argument … please stop.  Yes, you have a right to express your opinion, your position.  But, I see no objective way not to think of you as, to be polite,  credible if you continue to think so.  Plus, why not let people marrying animals?  Take their $20 marriage license fee & allow them to come out into the open as crazy people.

  • Anonymous

    How about:  “Do you favor a law allowing marriage licenses for ANY human couples (of appropriate age) that protects religious freedom by ensuring no religion or clergy be required to perform such a marriage in violation of their religious beliefs?”

  • pbmann

    Most of the liars, drug addicts, drunks, cheats, thieves, sexual perverts I know are straight.

  • Anonymous

    Getting legally married has nothing to do with god- it has to do with complying with the State of Maine’s marriage requirements.   No religious anything is needed or required to get married in ANY state…….and FYI ‘papa’ will be SCOTUS ……..and then all will be well in the land of Oz.

  • Anonymous

    That’s amusing, for we feel the same way as to why you are so obsessed with something that has no effect on your life. You do realize you won’t be forced to gay marry anyone, right?

    As to “finally shut up”… I will continue to fight for my equal treatment by our government under the law, for it is discrimination to deny us access to the 1,100+ benefits and privileges of civil marriage.

  • Anonymous

    How offensive you are here, to state that gays have no morals?

    My partner and I love and support one another, and have for decades. We volunteer, give to charity, and are welcomed members of our community.

    You really should try to get to know some real gay people, they are much different than the offensive caricature  you attack.

    • Then you must help to control the gay army because they are overshadowing you.

      • Tyke

         Let me guess:

        You look under your bed and in your closets for “the gay army” every night, right?

        • Anonymous

          Shhhhhhhhh he will find out where the happy army is hiding……oy!!

        • Anonymous

          And James thought above he had walked into a gay bar!

          Anti-gays would be hilarious if they weren’t so dangerous and weren’t trying to subvert our democracy.

      • Anonymous

        How about you stop assuming that every homosexual shares the same personality, political views, taste in clothing, and social behaviors?

        …because your stereotyping is making you sound like a bigot.

  • Guest

    ////

  • Anonymous

    Oh you mean they want tricky wording so people
    mistake it’s meaning and vote for it by accident?

    • Tyke

       Only if you consider putting both of the parts of the proposed law that is being voted on in the question being “tricky”.

      The proposed law contains two parts. Why would anyone want to HIDE one of those two parts from voters?

      • Anonymous

        ….cause the Gov does it all the time.
        How about including no tax deductions for
        having kids?

        • Tyke

           Go ahead and write a proposed bill and file to circulate a petition to change the law if you want to change tax laws.

          That’s how it’s done – good luck, you are not likely to get much support though.

          • Anonymous

            Piggy back it on this ballot and all singles
            will vote yes…..

          • Tyke

            but a lot of others who do support marriage equality would vote no.

            The issues are separate and should be considered as such.

          • Anonymous

             Why would a single person, want to vote yes to deny, people taking tax deductions for kids. Single people have, children too.

          • Anonymous

            If you were to be given 6k or more plus your standard deduction  in tax return money  or credit toward taxes if you DIDN’T have children. How many “unplanned” or “accidental” or whatever people want to label it, would have “unplanned” or accidental” births. I think you’d find that this current birth comtrol that seems to fail miserably would start working 100% better. End of welfare.

  • Anonymous

    I certainly hope you don’t believe that school kids don’t realize that there are homes with same sex parents and I doubt any of them give it any thought.  Re: gay parades–there are parades now are you thinking the gays will come to your house and force you to come and watch their parades if they are allowed to marry?  Believe me they will not do this.  It is a free country and you will not be forced to watch any parade.  
    Do not be afraid of them, they are just like you and me, they work, pay taxes, go to church, and only want to have the same rights as you and I.  I know a couple, one of who is very sick, the one sick does not have anyone living close to the area, so the healthy one must lie to the fact that she is the sick one’s sister and allowed to make any health decisions.  If they were married, which they would like to do, this problem would not exist. 
    To say that gays have no moral or ethical standards is an out and out lie and I am sure you have no proof to support this statement.  Are there bad gays, yes but no more than bad Christians or any other group you want to pick, do not paint any with a broad brush. 
    By the way I saw nothing in your post that would effect you adversely.

  • Anonymous

    Written like a complete bigot who has absolutely no clue about gay people and what this “fight” is trying to accomplish. 

    Children’s moral compass?  How about gay kids who are coming into their years of sexual awareness?  Your people would have them believe that they are somehow less than their straight friends.  This mindset too often drives gay teens to suicide.  That’s the pressure your side is putting on them.

    Prejudiced thinking and its resulting unfair treatment of minorities is not something a “moral” society should condone.  The opinions put forth in your post are a clear example of one of this country’s weaknesses. It’s a shame that you can’t see that.

    • I don’t worry about a few gay kids. They can get mental health counciling. I am worried about the huge majority of straight kids who will get a constant dose of gay rights issues shoved down there throats because the voting public has been brainwashed by the never ending attack on there belief that gay marriage is wrong. We will find out in november if the tail wags the dog.

      • Anonymous

        You don’t worry about a “few gay kids”?  And you are worried that rights issues of a minority are going to be “shoved down “there” (as you spelled it) throats”?

        Please keep posting.  Anyone wondering about the level of ignorance that gay people and other supporters of SSM are up against will be enlightened by your mindset.  And not in the way you want.

        An aside…I find it interesting that most of the posts that get zapped on this forum for being offensive are from the anti-SSM crowd. Including one of yours. When logic fails, your side just goes to extremes in an effort to scare people. More and more, we’re seeing through your lies.

        Edit: Make that TWO of your posts getting zapped!

        • That is the way I want it because that is the way it is. You have the same rights as anybody else, except the marriage vows. The congress and the courts over the years did not include same sex marriage in there findings and legislation because it was unheard off untill now. The human mind could not comprehend it. But now, we are suppossed to yield to a hand written note slipped into the constitution by a group of liberals

          • Anonymous

            You don’t have to think that far back to a time when we didn’t have the same rights as everyone else.  And in some states, gays are still fighting for equality in areas other than SSM. 

            Centuries of ignorance make for a tough wall to break through.  To put it in its simplest terms, gays and lesbians are people who are sexually attracted to members of the same gender but not the opposite.  We fall in love, just like straight people.  And we want the legal right to marry our partner.

            Why does that frighten you so much?

          • What you call ignorance, I call standard operating procedure for a society. What you call equality, I call  outer fringe sociology. Indeed, it is a tough wall to break through.

          • Anonymous

            Yeah, I recall some of that other “outer fringe sociology”…blacks being treated as people, women getting the vote.  Why, society has never recovered!!

            Well, actually, society bettered itself when those walls of discrimination came down.  Eventually, after gays get full equality, people will look back and wonder what all the fuss was about.

          •  You missed an opportunity. With the whole “wall” thing you two had going you should have used the Republican God against him with the whole Reagan going all Hulk Smash on the Berlin Wall… Did you know that Reagan actually tore it down himself? The footage we saw of Berliners doing it was all a fallacy perpetrated by the left wing media. This is how it really went down…

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEgf2xXbF9Y

          • I thing somainecoast an I are having a good conversation. No need to bring sarcasm into it. By the way, Pope John Paul the 2nd and Mikhail Gorbachev were the social engineers that influenced the destruction of the berlin wall. Reagan got wind of it and made a qiuck speech to make himself look like “the man.”

          • Anonymous

            I’d say you were losing that argument, James.  Sorry your anti-gay dreams won’t come true.

          • You can’t lose an argument when you are on the right side of history. To say I am wrong is silly. Currently, there are laws against same sex marriage. It is against the law for gays to marry in Maine. Period. I am on the right side of the law. Period. The last vote that Maine had on same sex marriage, proved that the people denied gays the right to marry in Maine. Period. I am on the right side of the vote. Period. Until the law changes and the people of Maine change, then your gay dream is just that. Until things change, we the people have won. Don’t forget it.

          • Anonymous

            Do you really want to discuss the 2009 anti-gay Hate Vote, James?  The Maine Ethics Commission proved anti-gays cheated to THROW that election.  Yep, anti-gays knew the only way they could fool Mainers was to get millions and millions in ILLEGAL contributions from out of state.

            How about YOU, James?  We KNOW anti-gay Mainers committed criminal acts meant to subvert our democracy.  And you think trying to subvert our democracy is “the right side of history”?  You must really hate America, James.  No one is forcing you to remain.  Go before the Maine Ethics Commission catches up with you, huh?  I’m sure IRAN won’t let the United States extradite you.

          • Get over it . you lost. We won. The only cheating that went on is your mind playing tricks on you.

          • Anonymous

            The Maine Ethics Commission knows you are LYING, James.  Guilty conscience?  We didn’t lose, anti-gays committed criminal acts and THREW the vote.  The Ethics Commission is watching–for you, too, James.  How would you like to spend the rest of your life in prison?  You might learn a lot about this “lifestyle choice” you’re whining about.

          • Linking homosexual marriage rights to slavery and women’s right to vote is pushing the enveople but it makes good political cannon fodder. There is nothing in the human rights lexicon that can equate gay marriage to human rights.

          • Anonymous

            If you were gay and wanted to marry your partner, you wouldn’t be saying that.  If you were denied access to your partner in the hospital because it was “family only”, you wouldn’t be saying that.  Think of all of the benefits afforded married couples that gays don’t have access to.

            As society evolves, more and more people understand what gay people are going through.  You’re part of the group that wants to hold a segment of society back because of your personal issues. 

            I have no doubt that we will achieve full equality, even if it means involvement by the US Supreme Court.

          • Anonymous

            “Linking homosexual marriage rights to slavery and women’s right to vote is pushing the enveople […]”

            Once again, many state High Courts have done just that, James, including Massachusetts.  Sorry that your nasty anti-gay opinion counts for NOTHING against the opinions of judges.  The US Constitution says their opinions COUNT.

          • Anonymous

            Oh RIGHT because gay people are not considered humans, thus they are not entitled to the same rights and protections under the laws of this country that any other human is entitled to…..THAT’S your logic?  Try again Jimmy.

          • Anonymous

            “You have the same rights as anybody else”

            The Iowa State Supreme Court answered that better than I can.  Even here in Maine, their decision has the weight of precedent.  Your opinion, James?  100% worthless…

          • Anonymous

            “That is the way I want it because that is the way it is. You have the
            same rights as anybody else, except the marriage vows. The congress and
            the courts over the years did not include” BLACKS  “in there
            findings and legislation because it was unheard off untill now. The
            human mind could not comprehend it. But now, we are suppossed to yield
            to a hand written note slipped into the constitution by a group of
            liberals”

            Hmmm sounds so similar to pre-1967

  • Anonymous

    Do you favor a law allowing  marriage licenses of same sex couples by the civil government, State of Maine.

     

  • Anonymous

    There is nothing ‘free’ when your fellow American’s (who incidentally happen to be gay-that doesn’t make them ‘less’ American does it?) are not afforded the same (no more no less) equal rights and opportunities under the laws of this country that every OTHER American citizen is automatically afforded simply because they were born an American.

    And unless you think people plan on raising their children in a cave- children will come into contact with all sorts of diverse people in their lives- different colors, different looks, different beliefs, different educations and the list goes on.  I have great hope that our future generations will be far more enlightened than our current generation is. There is no reason to fear or dislike someone simply because they are different from you in some way.

    These ‘weeds’ you speak of—- are somebody’s child, somebody’s brother or sister, somebody’s aunt or uncle, somebody’s family member, somebody’s best friend, somebody’s partner, somebody’s co-worker…..they are people not weeds. Too bad compassion and empathy do not come in a pill you could use a good dose of both.

  • Old Bear

    Put on the ballot Maine does not want same sex marriage. What part of that do you not understand people.NO MEANS NO!!!!!

    • Anonymous

      What part of equal rights under the law is confusing for you?

    • If you need help moving out of Maine come November, I know a good company that could help.

      • Anonymous

        Maybe we could take up a collection!

    • Anonymous

      Relax, sweetie, no one will force you to marry another “bear.”  I’m quite sure no other “bear” will ever ask you.

      But shame on you for trying to deny your fellow Mainers the same right to legal marriage you have.  What other guarantees of equality written in the United States Constitution do you oppose?

    • Don’t worry about the comments big bear. I looks like we walked into a gay bar by mistake. But, we are right regardless. Have a good day!

      • Anonymous

        NO, James, you didn’t walk into a gay bar.  You walked into AMERICA.  American is no longer a safe place for homophobia–for lies and hate speech about LGBT Americans.  You’re both posting under pseudonyms, right?  See, it’s the anti-gays who are in the closet now, afraid to make their hate speech in public.

        But it’s interesting that you’d claim you walked into a gay bar.  If you really had, you would be treated with kindness and respect, but anti-gays NEVER treat their fellow Americans with that same kindness and respect.

        Maybe a homophobia-free America just isn’t the country for you, James.  Try Iran.  They commit state murder of their LGBT citizens.  Maybe you’d enjoy that.  You tell us.  Anti-gays express the wish all the time that LGBT Americans would be “deported” to Iran to be murdered in this and other comment sections–anonymously.  I just have to assume anti-gays get off on thinking about their LGBT Americans being murdered in genocide.

        • You talk silly. Enjoy your own flatulence, nobody else will.

          • Anonymous

            It figures you’d come all the way down here to make a personal attack at me–while ignoring my question if you committed criminal acts in violation of Maine campaign finance and disclosure laws.  I take it the answer is YES, but that you are too cowardly to admit it.

  • Anonymous

    I wish the people who used the Bible as an argument were either: intelligent or actually read the Bible. If one reads it closely, they can see that much of the text can be used to support almost any position entirely. For example, banning menstruating women from sleeping in the same bed as a man. 

    • Anonymous

      All people do is cherry pick at the bible . Now how many times has they bible been rewriten over the time when the first bible was writen  ??

      • Anonymous

        Modern Biblical scholars have proven the Bible was intentionally mistranslated relatively recently in order to provide “Biblical cover” for then-rising levels of homophobia.  For example, the word “homosexual” didn’t even exist until 1850.  Many major Christian and Jewish denominations condemn misusing the hate-based mistranslations to attack their fellow Americans and are marrying same gender American couples now.  About 400-years ago, a group of religious authorities (sanctioned by King James I of England), secretly manipulated the English version of the Bible to reflect their own heterosexual attitude; they opposed the king kissing other men in public. But in revised versions, religious authorities re-defined the Greek word “arsenokoites” of 1Corinthians 6:9!  The most accurate translation, abusers of themselves with mankind [KJV], was pretty vague.  Nevertheless, they replaced this vague 5-worded text with the not so vague and purposely targeted 1-word text, “homosexual(s).” Either way you cut it, this text does not describe homosexuals. This campaign gave those who were looking for a reason to justify their own homophobia a license to openly express their bigotry.

  • Guest

    //////

    • Anonymous

      Fortunately only the few remaining anti-gays.  That’s why psychologists call that mental disorder “homoPHOBIA.”

      • Guest

        ….

  • Anonymous

    The biggest anti-gay LIE I’ve found here goes like this:

    “You already have the same right to legal marriage…”

    No, LGBT Americans DO NOT have the SAME right to legal marriage as mixed-sex couples do.  The Iowa State Supreme Court unanimously established marriage equality in April 2009, and this is their answer to “You have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as anyone else”:

    “It is true the marriage statute does not expressly prohibit gay and lesbian persons from marrying; it does, however, require that if they marry, it must be to someone of the opposite sex. Viewed in the complete context of marriage, including intimacy, civil marriage with a person of the opposite sex is as unappealing to a gay or lesbian person as civil marriage with a person of the same sex is to a heterosexual. Thus, the right of a gay or lesbian person under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with a person of the opposite sex is no right at all. Under such a law, gay or lesbian individuals cannot simultaneously fulfill their deeply felt need for a committed personal relationship, as influenced by their sexual orientation, and gain the civil status and attendant benefits granted by the statute. Instead, a gay or lesbian person can only gain the same rights under the statute as a heterosexual person by negating the very trait that defines gay and lesbian people as a class-their sexual orientation.”

    http://www.iowacourtsonline.org/Supreme_Court/Varnum_v_Brien/Supreme_Court_Ruling/

    • Anonymous

      Way to go carrotcakeman!!  It’s like telling someone they have the same right as everyone else to run in a marathon….too bad they’re a paraplegic……or you can buy any kind of car and color you want- so long as it’s a red station wagon…it’s a pseudo option as none of these are actual options.

      • Anonymous

        Thanks!  (blush)  But the eloquent words are those of the Iowa State Supreme Court, which unanimously revoked a 16 year old law there that restricted marriage as a “special right” for mixed sex couples only.  Anti-gays there have been unable to get their anti-gay Hate Vote and Iowans still have marriage equality.  Iowans prize “Mind Your Own Business” as a virtue and consider the anti-gays just troublemakers.

         

        • Anonymous

          Can you imagine if things were reversed and gay people told straight people that they can get married anytime they want…….so long as they marry someone of the same sex??  OMG straight people would have fits!!!

          • Anonymous

            We could never be so cruel and inhuman…

  • Anonymous

    If this much chatter on the subject is occurring in June, what will it be like by November?  A roar?

    • Anonymous

      While I’m sure the anti-gays will become more shrill and ridiculous as the election draws nearer, moderate voices will prevail, especially if the Maine Ethics Commission remains vigilant and prevents the sort of criminal activity in violation of campaign finance and disclosure laws as the anti-gays were caught doing in 2009.  The anti-gay hate cult NOM is STILL in violation of our laws.  What is NOM up to now?

      • ChuckGG

        Hopefully, checking the cash-out status of their 401(k)’s.

        • Anonymous

          I’m frustrated that the IRS isn’t investigating some of the “cheater” anti-gay churches that are in CLEAR violation of IRS 503c3 regulations.  I can understand why Bush winked at such violations.  Hopefully those investigations are ongoing now and the IRS is waiting until they have the proof in hand.  NO church has the right to act like a political action committee while operating at the expense of taxpayers.

          • Anonymous

            How about YOU, James?  You keep sneaking back here and posting way, way down the page.  Did your church violate IRS regulations by interfering in the 2009 anti-gay Hate Vote?  Did YOU commit criminal acts in violation of Maine’s campaign finance and disclosure laws, like NOM has been proven to have done and is still doing?

  • Anonymous

    I see James doesn’t want to discuss if he himself committed criminal acts in violation of Maine campaign finance and disclosure laws, like we know for a FACT the anti-gay hate cult NOM did in 2009, because the Maine Ethics Commission caught NOM red-handed.

    That’s just the way of anti-gays–sneaking around in the shadows, and breaking the law so they can subvert our elections and our democracy.  No wonder Mainers increasingly reject their tactics and refuse to help them hurt their fellow Mainers who are LGBT.  And without the help from others who fall for their anti-gay propaganda, the few remaining anti-gays have no hope of defeating this vote.

    After all, if anti-gays were so all fired sure they were going to win in 2009, they wouldn’t have cheated and lied to the extent they did in 2009, would they? 

    • The championship belt is around the waist of the majority of Mainers. Get over it. The rematch comes in November. Until then, work out and train hard. The second time around is tougher.

      • Anonymous

        James foolishly denied that anti-gays violated Maine campaign finance and disclosure laws in a cowardly response below.  Here’s documentation that James was trying to deceive readers:

        An appeals court on Tuesday upheld the state’s campaign disclosure law
        that requires a national anti-gay marriage group to release its donor
        list, but the group plans to take the fight to shield the list to the
        U.S. Supreme Court.The ruling by the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in
        Boston, like its earlier decision, will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme
        Court, Bopp said.

        http://www.pressherald.com/news/anti-gay-marriage-group-loses-appeal_2012-02-01.html?searchterm=Maine+Ethics+NOM

        I’m still waiting for your answer, James, did YOU violate Maine campaign finance and disclosure laws to help throw the 2009 anti-gay Hate Vote? 

        • Anonymous

          “The second time around is tougher.”

          That sounds to me like an admission that you plan to work even harder to subvert the proper Rule of Law and throw this fall’s election, James. Why don’t you tell the Maine Ethics Commission your plans and the plans of the few other anti-gays? Hey, if you’re so PROUD of the criminal acts anti-gays committed to throw the 2009 anti-gay Hate Vote, I should think you’d do that, not just sneak around this website under a pseudonym.

          • I have no idea what your talking about, but I guess i will blame it on the butler. You have been watching to many tom and jerry cartoons. I must have rubbed some salt on your sore loser spot. Oh well, like I said before, Mainers 2 Carrotcake 0

          • Anonymous

            So you say the “fix” by anti-gays–the criminal acts meant to throw this upcoming vote–are already in place, James?  I hope the Maine Ethics Commission will read how you say anti-gays are indeed committing criminal acts to throw the vote.  We don’t know your real identity, but the BDN will be happy to tell the Maine Ethics Commission who you are.  That next knock on your door could be the police.  You might want to keep a good supply of your meds and a toothbrush in your pocket, James, since you so recklessly insist the “fix is in.”  You may very well need them–now that you’ve admitted you intend to subvert our political process by throwing the election.

          • You are playing mind games with yourself to find some satisfaction in getting thumped in 09. You must have taken some political lessons from Barney Frank. Twist facts and cry long and loud. Go get em.

          • Anonymous

            Anti-gays always resort to such personal attacks when we confront them with facts they can’t refute and they refuse to believe.  This particular poster has had two posts deleted in this thread alone, and likely more of his will be deleted when the monitors return to work in the morning.

            Psychologists report that the most commonly observed symptom of the mental disorder homophobia is an inability of those so afflicted to accept documentation that contradicts their deep-seated phobia and hatred of LGBT Americans.

  • Anonymous

    It’s a shame that Maine taxpayers are forced to foot the bill for the few remaining anti-gays.  Why have these anti-gays never volunteered to reimburse taxpayers for the 2009 anti-gay Hate Vote?  Anti-gays are the only ones who wanted the anti-gay Hate Vote.  Anti-gays demonstrated in 2009 as well as now that they can get PLENTY of out-of-state illegal contributions–why don’t they pay for their dirty Hate Vote?

    We had a good marriage equality bill all signed into law, through the legislative process, which is how anti-gays used to say was “the correct way” until legislatures in several US States did just that–follow the legislative process to establish marriage equality.  But NO, as they used to say on Saturday Night Live, the anti-gays just couldn’t accept that, they had to cook up the expensive 2009 anti-gay Hate Vote–and by committing those criminal acts, the anti-gays proved even they knew their Hate Vote would fail.

    So, how about it, anti-gays, are you gonna pay your own way–or are you just parasites, expecting taxpayers to pay for your disgusting attempts to hurt your fellow Mainers who are LGBT?

  • How about, “Do you want to allow same-gender couples to marry, or are you a bigot?”

You may also like