November 23, 2017
Augusta Latest News | Poll Questions | Charlie Rose | North Korea | Sexual Harassment

Comments for: Same-sex marriage supporters say they’ve raised $1 million

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):

  • Guest

    Raise all the money you want, it won’t change anything!

    • Anonymous

      Yes it will they can rebuff all the lies the other side will tell you

    • Anonymous

      Why, are anti-gays going to commit criminal acts to poison our political process again?  How do you know?  Are you committing those criminal acts yourself?

    • Anonymous

      Yeah it’s impossible to educate people who are just plain obtuse……you can’t fix stoopid pfffffffft.

  • Anonymous

    The Catholic Church, the ONLY religious body recognized by God, isn’t impressed. 

    • You must be kididng.

      • ChuckGG

        Mike – the strange part is, he is not kidding!  I truly have never seen anything like it.  The presumptuousness of some of these people.  I’ve told the story before of the wife of a high-school buddy of mine, very Catholic, and who drank the Kool-Aid from an early age.  Now 55, she told me, and I quote, “Well, Chuck, you know the only TRUE church is the Catholic church.”  And, she was not kidding!  She was dead-on serious.

        Forget the fact that Christians are outnumbered on the planet and that Catholicism is not the only Christian religion, but somehow, she has a direct line to God who apparently personally told her this fact.  It doesn’t matter that God told others of other religions the same story.  The others, of course, are wrong.

        They won’t believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, or the Easter Bunny, but a spook in the sky floating around watching their every move is perfectly credible. 

        For her, given how she was fed the line that if she did everything according to church doctrine her life would be perfect, and to no one’s surprise, it didn’t turn out that way, it is understandable she has to have something to which to anchor her sobriety.  The unwavering truth in her mind is her church.  And, that’s okay, too.  It only gets annoying when she thinks it needs to be my anchor, as well.

        For me, it is kind of like Dumbo the elephant holding onto that feather.  Without it, he cannot fly (or so he believes).

    • Anonymous

      The federal judge who revoked the 2008 California anti-gay H8te Vote that deprived LGBT Californians of existing marriage equality had in his possession a letter Catholic bishops wrote to Mormon leaders agreeing to hide from public scrutiny and refuse to report their illegal cash and in-kind contributions to the H8te Vote as required by California law. The letter serves as proof they knew by refusing to report these massive contributions they were violating campaign finance laws, as well as the letter itself being an act of criminal collusion.

      It seems that organization you’re promoting has no respect for the law. Didn’t Jesus say something about “render to Caesar”?

    •  http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/vader+and+jesus_f39f73_3561025.jpg

  • Guest

  • Good! Now maybe they will have enough money to put a big picture of harold and fred at the alter for all of us to marvel at, and then the threshold carry thru. That ought to muster up some votes.

    • Anonymous

      Although I do not at all agree with your positon on the matter, I will give you 1 internet point for NOT using the tiresome Adam and Steve nomenclature.

      • Anonymous

        He also didn’t say he wanted to marry a horse.

      • ChuckGG

        Bert & Ernie.  That’s my favorite.  Together for 40+ years.

  • Anonymous

    A man made utopia we now have. A man can marry a man, a woman another woman, no  respect for the law and on it goes. I will continue to say a lttle prayer each night grateful in the knowledge that the  Kingdom of Heaven will soon arrive. All will be settled then!

    • Anonymous

      “no  respect for the law”

      The Maine Ethics Commission caught anti-gays red-handed violating our campaign finance and disclosure laws.  Clearly, it’s the anti-gays who have no respect for the law.  Direct your comments to the anti-gays.

    • No kingdom of heaven is every coming, sorry to burst your bubble.

      Why are you so afraid of same sex marriage? How would it change your life?

      Bottom line is it wouldn’t at all but you oppose it because the bible tells you to but I know for 100% fact you do not follow every single word in the bible so why is same sex marriage the big issue you focus on?

      • Anonymous

        Kevin, the sad thing is geekslayer isn’t even telling the TRUTH about the Bible.  These denominations have married same gender couples in 7 US States and the District of Columbia:

        The Episcopal Church
        Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
        Metropolitan Community Church
        Reform Judaism
        Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)
        Unitarian Universalist Church
        United Church of Christ

        These and many other denominations reject the hate speech inserted in the bible to hurt LGBT people.  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.

        • I can already predict his rebuttal if he has one.

          • Anonymous

            Yes, an attack on the Freedom Of Religion of all other Americans, along the line of “You all have to join MY church and believe what I believe.”

  • Anonymous

    I’m in favor of marriage equality, but it is a little ironic, given that every state referendum on the issue has been met with endless online posts saying, “Civil rights should not be voted on!”, that this vote has actually been SPONSORED by same-sex marriage supporters.

    • Anonymous

      You should direct your complaints to the anti-gays who cooked up the 2009 anti-gay Hate Vote.  We had established marriage equality through the proper legislative process before then.  This new vote is to reverse the Hate Vote.  None of this would have been necessary if the anti-gays had acted like Americans. 

      • Anonymous

        Oh, I’m not complaining! I hope equality wins; I was just pointing out the irony, and wondering why supporters didn’t go for the more consistent option of a court ruling, as we did here in California with Prop 8.

        • ChuckGG

          Convenient?  How many years has Prop-8 dragged on?  The Legislature could have reintroduced the bill, too, but what legislator would have stuck his head in that noose?

          • Anonymous

            In “Perry vs. Brown,” the federal decision revoking the 2008 California anti-gay Hate Vote, anti-gays have exhausted their appeals at the US Circuit Court level and are now appealing to the United States Supreme Court.

            Today’s decision of the US Supreme Court must seem like a death blow to anti-gays.

            Sad to say, the US Circuit Court has not yet released the stay on the revocation and same gender California couples are still being HURT by the Hate Vote.

          • ChuckGG

            What I find notable is the reaction of the conservatives to Roberts’ decision.  The neocons are forever rambling on about “activist judges.”  I have always said that for the SSM issue we do not need any “activist” judges.  Just follow the constructionist view of the Constitution and base your judgement on that.  The results will be obvious.

            The neocons have no real idea or concept of the Constitution.  The stories and interpretations I have heard from this crowd are just stunning.  They have little logic and cannot grasp inference or precedent.  They keep dragging religion into a document where it does not exist.  They simply do not “get it,” and they aren’t going to “get it,” from what I see.

            I, too, was somewhat skeptical on the commerce clause approach.  I thought that concept was a bit of a stretch.  However, I always thought it could fall under the taxation clause as we already have that vehicle in place for Medicare and other programs.  Obamacare would be an expansion of this concept.

            Roberts did a great job dissecting the law and clarifying it within the Constitution and I think the explanation for his decision is accurate.  The job of SCOTUS is to interpret the law as written and see if it is Constitutional.  While the arguments presented were not agreed to, the law in itself was reviewed and found to be Constitutional.

            I agree the anti-SSM crowd is cringing.  If Roberts can go along with Obamacare then the arguments presented in a case like Prop-8 should be open-and-shut.

          • Guest

            What?   Did you not hear Justice Roberts?  What he said was  “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”  That means that he is willing to let the voters and the states make their own decisions on this issue and that we will have to live with them.  It also sounds as though, if Congress votes for a Constitutional Amendment to protect traditional marriage, it will be because we elected men and women who have committed to doing that.  This is a good thing.  Justice Roberts was absolutely wrong in labeling Obamacare a tax, but he wasn’t wrong in telling us we have to vote the bums who forced it through, out of office in November.

          • Anonymous

            You can just FORGET about your dirty federal “Hatred and Fear of Gay And Lesbian Americans” Amendment, anti-gays thought Bush and the GOP Congress 2001-2007 would do that, but they simply took anti-gays for that ride where they drove America into the ditch.  Thanks for helping the GOP drive America into the ditch, anti-gays!

            And you know from his decision that Roberts will NEVER help anti-gays!

          • ChuckGG

            Some clarification:  Roberts is quite right.  We have a representative government.  We elect legislators to make decisions in our best interests even if those interests may not be popular at the time.  For example, if left to the majority, it is possible for the majority to vote for new roadways and a new football stadium but then vote against raising taxes to pay for these items.  That is why we have a “representative government.”  Sometimes, we have to take our medicine whether we like it or not.  Now, if we disagree with what the legislators have done, our redress for this is to vote them out of office.   That is why I am not the biggest fan of the People’s Veto as it currently is implemented.  It removes our “representative government” and reduces it to a “simple majority” vote.  All it takes to activate the People’s Veto is to obtain around 55,000 signatures on a petition.

            As we can readily see from the 2009 debacle, it was easy enough to obtain 55,000 signatures as this happens to coincide with the number of people in Maine who believe the world is flat.  It’s like shooting fish in a barrel.

            If the People’s Veto had something like a “2/3rds majority” requirement then I think that better serves the people of Maine, and we then could have our representative government actually be representative.  The People’s Veto would be reserved for overwhelming dislike of the action of the legislature, not a 49/51 split.  But, that never change to 2/3rds will never happen.

            And, you are correct that if Congress votes for a Constitutional Amendment to ban SSM, it will be because we elected people to vote for such an amendment.  However, as you know, an Amendment to the Constitution requires a 2/3rd majority vote in both the House and Senate.  Thereafter, it requires 3/4ths (38) of the States to ratify the Amendment.  I think the time limit is 7 years but the ERA was extended to 10 years and still did not make it.

            Given the trend of SSM acceptance and the fact that 7 (?) states, so far, have legalized SSM, you are down to 43 states available of the 38 required.  If 6 more states legalize SSM (likely in the next 7 years – assuming an amendment were passed today by the US Congress), then there would not be 38 states remaining to do the ratification.

            Suffice it to say the chances of an Amendment to the United State Constitution to ban SSM is approaching absolute zero.  More likely is a court case similar to Prop-8 but more expansive, DOMA, or some near-future case, will appear before SCOTUS and Article IV, Section 1, (“full faith and credit” clause) will kick in killing DOMA and forcing all states to recognize the SSM of other states.

            The trend is, and has been, in favor of SSM.  It is not trending downward.

            Roberts was quite correct in labeling Obamacare a tax as that is what it is.  He said so, so it is.  That’s the way SCOTUS works.  He made no mention of voting anyone out of office nor did he call them bums.  His job is to determine the constitutionality of the law and not to determine its value or worth.  He is quite correct.  You have inferred a meaning that is not based in fact.  And, as I have said in other postings, this is a common trait of the neocons.

            Look, it’s this simple.  You aren’t going to win this one.  Find some other whipping boy to justify your dislike of anyone with a different view than yours.

    • ChuckGG

      We were on the Express bus in 2009.  The damn thing was vandalized and we now have to take a Local.  Eventually, we will get there.

  • Guest

    I say let the men marry men, women marry women and all of us become pro abortion. That way in three more generations there will be no more Democrats.

    • Anonymous

      NO ONE is “pro-abortion.”  Those who are pro-choice know that the only real alternative to legal, safe abortion is botched back room abortion and butchered American women.  Those who claim they are “pro-life” are lying, they also know butchered American women would be the result if they were to succeed in violating the United States Constitution.  I guess you fall into that group, since you’ve expressed the desire to see all Americans who disagree with you die.

      • ChuckGG

        The opposition seems to believe that making abortion illegal will stop abortion.  They also seem to feel that preventing SSM will result in few gays and lesbians and that gay families will no longer exist.

        Of course, the numbers never change; only whether the participants get the civil rights enjoyed by others.

        • Anonymous

          In their less guarded moments anti-abortion types sneer that some women will seek abortions and that their being butchered in back room abortions is “justice” for their “crime.”

          • ChuckGG

            And, according to former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, the way to stop most abortions is to prevent unwanted pregnancies, but as he admitted, the same group that is anti-abortion is also anti-birth control.

            Riddle me this, if you were a large international organization with no real salable product and depended primarily upon donations from individuals and with no other income except for a chain of laundries run by the free labor of women brainwashed that they were sinners and must repent, how would you feel toward a product that limited the size of your donor base and reduced the potential exponential growth of your donor base?

            This would be similar to limiting an Amway representative to only two clients per year instead of ten, for example.

            Best guess is you would do whatever it takes to prevent the product from being used by your donors.

            Just guessing, of course.

  • Anonymous

    “Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticized some Christians for
    feeling so “embarrassed and ashamed and disgusted” over homosexuality
    that they seem unwelcoming to outsiders and convey a lack of
    understanding. Williams also told his youthful audience that some
    non-Christians might consider Christians to be “weird,” ‘’mad” and
    “primitive.”

    “As somebody who doesn’t spend all his time with
    other Christians, I’m quite conscious, too, of the fact that people
    think we are weird,” Williams said.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/archbishop-of-canterbury-slams-christians-who-feel-disgusted-about-homosexuality/2012/06/28/gJQAs3fi9V_story.html

    Are you listening, anti-gay “Christians”?

  • Guest

    The voters of this country have rejected ssm every time it has been on the ballot, for whatever their reasons, many (most) of which have absolutely nothing to do with religion or faith.  It will be no different in Maine.  Any bill attempting to allow ssm will be defeated.  It just will.  This is simply not something the voters of Maine and every other state will stand for because we’ve now seen the devastating fallout on education, on parental rights, first amendment rights, etc, in states where it has been allowed.  Hopefully, it will be repealed in those states soon or we will have an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution finally stating what we all know to be true: marriage is only the legal union of one man and one woman.

    • Anonymous

      We all know these Hate Votes intended to deprive LGBT Americans of the same right to legal marriage everyone else takes for granted were first cooked up by Karl Rove as a GOP Dirty Trick® to get his boss, Bush, elected and re-elected.  We know Bush then told the IRS to ignore the churches that violated their IRS 503c3 regulations by cheating on these Hate Votes.

      We also know that the Maine Ethics Commission caught anti-gays RED-HANDED violating our campaign finance and disclosure laws in order to poison our political process and THROW an election.

      We also know that George W. Bush always claimed he supported this federal “Hatred And Fear of LGBT Americans” amendment kgrube wants, but that even when Bush was president and the GOP controlled both houses of Congress, their Hatred Amendment went NOWHERE because it’s just another GOP Dirty Trick®.

      We also know that Mainers support this bill by 55% and that Americans on the whole support marriage equality by 53-57%.  We know that support is rising 5% per YEAR.

      The ONLY ones who “see a fallout” are anti-gays who simply LIE and PRETEND there are problems.  There are NONE.

      Anti-gays always lie.  Always…

      • Guest

        The only poll that counts is the one at the ballot box.  ssm has never won.  Not once.  And it won’t in Maine.  I also suggest you find a way other than namecalling to get your point across.  I take that back.  It’s exactly that kind of behavior that proves your intolerance.  All I’m pointing out is the real – not imagined – support the voters of this country have for traditional marriage.  You can call them haters all you want, but it won’t change the facts.

        • Anonymous

          “ssm has never won.”

          That’s a lie.  Arizona rejected an anti-gay Hate Vote in 2004; Washington State rejected an anti-gay Hate Vote in 2009.  Anti-gays in California have taken out petition for yet more Hate Votes there but haven’t been able to get anything on the ballot.

          “Name calling”?  You object to “anti-gay”?  That isn’t a “name,” it’s a pure statement of FACT.

          We all know why anti-gays prefer these anti-gay Hate Votes.  Anti-gays have violated the law in each anti-gay Hate Vote.  The Maine Ethics Commission caught anti-gays red-handed poisoning our political processs in 2009, and at least one anti-gay Hate Cult is STILL in VIOLATION of our laws.

          But the polls that anti-gays whine about today CANNOT be faked by anti-gays.  That disturbs them, since they are so accustomed to CHEATING.

          • Guest

            Again, the only thing that counts on this issue is the decision the voters make at the ballot box.  Same-sex marriage is not currently allowed in Arizona and that’s not going to change.  When a single state approves ssm by a vote of the people, you might have an argument.  Until then, you don’t.

          • Anonymous

            So your argument is that people don’t like it? Wow, compelling stuff. It took a court mandate to legalize interracial marriage in many parts of this country — it would have NEVER been voted up in those places. Does that make it invalid and wrong to have an interracial marriage?

            Until you find something better than what’s popular is right, you don’t have an argument.

          • Anonymous

            It would be NICE if anti-gays didn’t commit criminal acts to throw such votes.  Maine caught anti-gays red-handed poisoning our political process in 2009.

          • Guest

            Nope.  Would you not call the way ssm was blustered through the New York State legislature illegal?  I would.  They violated their own rules to impose it on their state, and now the elected officials who did it are paying the consequences.  The same is true in New Hampshire.  There are enough illegal and unethical tactics on the pro-ssm side to suggest that you simply might want to stop trying to throw stones.  The point is – and my point has always been – that the voters have rejected ssm every time it has been up for a vote.  Simple reality.  Deal with it.

          • Anonymous

            It’s so sad to see that anti-gays want to subvert the Proper Rule Of Law and can’t accept the legislative actions of the US States that have established marriage equality that way.  New York State established marriage equality in exactly the way legislation was set up by the United States Constitution.

            We know that New Hampshire’s legislature rejected the bill to attack same gender NH couples.  More GOP representatives voted against that repeal of equality than voted for it, which makes an anti-gay like the rube above angry and upset, but then we know that homophobia is a mental disorder and those so affected aren’t in control of their emotions.

            If pro-equality Americans really had done something “illegal and unethical,” we’d all know about it, and the anti-gay poster could be specific, but all the anti-gay poster can do is make these general attacks and tell lies.

            Of course, we don’t need to have a VOTE to uphold the United States Constitution’s guarantee of “Equal Protection Under The Law,” no matter how many times anti-gays scream they want yet another Hate Vote. 

    • ChuckGG

      Well, just horse hockey.  The “32 of 32” states argument should be revisited.  Excluding NC which is bible-belt state and had the anti-SSM amendment on the GOP primary ballot (talk about stuffing the ballot box!), the votes on the other 31 states occurred years ago!  Much has happened in just the past 3 years.  Today’s polls do not compare well with those 31 states.

      A good poll (and an honest one) would be to chart the poll by each of the 31 states at the time their respective vote was taken.  Then, chart today’s polls for each of those same 31 states, and do a comparison.  I think you would find some drastically different numbers.

      The pollsters feel that if Prop-8 in California were put to the vote today, it would be defeated hands-down.

      Here is what I am seeing:  Chart SSM acceptance over time from say 5 years ago.  Chart SSM disapproval over the same time.  The two lines on the chart will diverge, never cross, and the approval will move upward while the disapproval trends downward.  That’s just the way it is.

      Overlay a demographic of age breakdown and it is clear – young people are overwhelming supportive of SSM (in the upper 70% range) while oldsters hover around 50% and less.  As the old folks die off and the young people grow to voting age, again we can see that SSM is trending upward.

      Please feel free to contradict.  I would like to see data to the contrary.

      • Anonymous

        Here’s the data that confirms the rapid increase in support for marriage equality for LGBT Americans, ChuckGG.  Doubters, please note the source is a right-wing publication:

        http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/07/27/new-study-support-for-gay-marriage-grew-faster-in-past-two-years

        “According to the report, polling data from sources including Gallup, CNN/ORC, ABC/Washington Post, and Pew Research Center indicate that average support for legalizing gay marriage grew at a rate of approximately 1 percent per year between 1996 and 2009, but the rate increased to 5 percent growth per year from 2009 to 2011. “That’s actually a 500 percent increase in the rate of change,” Benenson said at a press conference. “We rarely see that kind of upward spike in support around an issue.”

        Because of that growth, several national polls show a majority of Americans now support legalizing gay marriage, including Gallup (53 percent), Public Religion Research Institute (51 percent), CNN/ORC (51 percent), and ABC/Washington Post (53 percent).”

        • Guest

          I repeat: the only poll that counts is the one at the ballot box.  I’m perfectly happy to let the voters make this decision.  Why aren’t you?

          • ChuckGG

            We are letting the voters make the decision only because of what happened in 2009.  The vote this November is a direct result of the People’s Veto results.  Had that not occurred we would have had SSM as a result of the decision of the elected representatives.  The vote this November is merely the most expeditious means to accomplish the goal.  Yes, a court case could have been initiated but that would have taken years.  It was evident after the 2009 overturn that NOM and the Catholic church were in this so deeply, I’m surprised they weren’t brought up on RICO charges.  NOM still is in court and some of the material made public from NOM’s own files as a result of the trial is very damning.  Many in Maine felt they were misled.   In three short years public attitudes and laws have changed across the country.  The voting approach, while not ideologically sound, is good enough.  And, the added bonus is the naysayers will no longer be able to drag out that tired old argument about “32 of 32 states.”  Finally, a State where the people voted.  That will be a feather in Maine’s cap, raise our image, and is great for business.  We no longer will be considered “Mississippi North” or, more recently, “North Carolina Extended.”

            What astounds me, not just in this issue, but in many issues, is this complete lack of understanding history.  Is it no longer taught in schools?  The world did not begin when I was born.  I like to be able to look back and see our history, and that would be our actual history, not this bizarre rendition mentioned by the Tea Party crowd.  Palin and her explanation of Paul Revere’s ride and that “she’s okay with history,” implying that her interest is marginal and like carrot juice is “okay, but I don’t usually drink it.”  Clueless, absolutely and utterly clueless.

            Can today’s TP crowd relate to what it was like in history?  Can they put themselves back in history and have some empathy of people of that time?  I think not.  Rarely have I seen a group so superficial as this crowd.  If there is a history professor from a reputable college among them, I would be very surprised.

            I, on the other hand, realize that my grandmother who I adored, was 16 years old when women obtained the right to vote.  Can you imagine?  What must it have been like to be a person who was not allowed to cast her vote simply because of her gender?  It is so insulting.   What about Mr. & Mrs. Loving in 1967, a black and white couple in Virginia who were deported (really!) from their own state because the rednecks in Virginia didn’t want the “purity of the white race tainted.”  Imagine that.   I was 12 years old.   How about in Florida when I was 4?  My Mom and I boarded a bus and, being a kid, I wanted to sit way in the back where the big window was.  The bus driver told me I could not do that because I wasn’t “colored.”  I remember that to this day.  I remember adult “colored” waiters calling me, “Mr. Chuck.”  I wasn’t a “Mr.” anything.  I was a kid.

            Why do I mention all these stories?  Because all of these situations were remedied not by the people’s vote.  Those votes had all failed.  The majority had no interest in providing equal rights to minorities.  Those situations were made right by court cases and/or the actions of the legislative bodies.  All were contentious decisions.  In the inter-racial marriage issue, about 70% of the population disapproved of inter-racial marriage.  I remember in 1977 a woman I worked with telling me she wasn’t a racist but she didn’t approve of inter-racial marriage.  “The races shouldn’t inter-marry.”  Okay.  Kind of a surprise to hear from her.

            And, today, I hear that two people who love each other shouldn’t be allowed to legally marry because some churches (not all) disapprove of such marriages.  Doesn’t this story sound even vaguely familiar?  Apparently not.  I guess the requirements to be a Tea Party conservative and/or a religious zealot include no sense of history and no empathy toward one’s fellow man.

            So, does that answer your question as to why I feel the rights of minorities should not be left to the whims of the majority?

          • Anonymous

            What this anti-gay poster really means is that he hopes anti-gays will commit criminal acts in violation of Maine campaign finance and disclosure laws again.  The Maine Ethics Commission caught anti-gays RED-HANDED in 2009 poisoning our political process–one anti-gay Hate Cult is STILL in violation of our laws from 2009!

            It’s really sad to see how anti-gays want to subvert our democracy this way. 

  • TimesOfGayMarriage.blogspot.com

    • Anonymous

      Thank you for your kindness and your support.

      • Your welcome. Unity is necessary.

  • Guest

    My point is that there is no argument.  I’m not the person you have to convince, just one of tens of millions.  Each person votes against ssm for his or her own reasons.  Like it or not, that’s how our government is set up.  In a way, it’s like what Justice Roberts said yesterday in the Obamacare ruling: “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”  In other words, you’re just upset because you can’t ram this through by popular vote yourselves.  And please quit harping on the completely invalid comparison between race or gender (which we are definitely born with) and sexual lifestyle choice.  No one is listening to that one any longer.  Again, when you can get even a single state to vote in ssm, you may have an argument.  Not until then.

    • Anonymous

      See how this anti-gay poster seeks to demean and dehumanize and demonize his fellow Americans who are LGBT by repeating that LIE that sexual orientation is a “choice”?

      We need to be understanding of anti-gays, though.  They have a mental disorder and they alone cannot beat this overarching obsession they have about the private lives of others.  Fortunately, we know even anti-gays CAN be cured–

      If only they would seek psychiatric care!

  • Anonymous

    We know we can’t convince the few remaining anti-gays to act like Americans and support equality, but it’s important to remember it’s because anti-gays have a mental disorder, homophobia.  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.  Sad to say, anti-gay CANNOT believe the facts.

    But, fortunately, MOST Americans are loving and accepting of their family members, friends, neighbors and coworkers who are LGBT.  We know, for example, the reason Congress revoked DADT, even with some GOP members helping, is because fully 80% of Americans reject the lies and hate speech anti-gays pump out.

    Anti-gays are also LYING when they claim there’s no comparison between the immutability of sexual orientation and race.  Sexual orientation, whether gay or non-gay, has been shown by science to be inborn and unchangeable, and psychologists have shown being gay or lesbian is just as healthy and “normal” as being non-gay.  Here are several respected websites (and a citation from Fox News for the doubters) that document this:

    http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/differential-brain-activation.pdf
    http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155990,00.html
    http://www.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.html
    http://www.springerlink.com/content/w27453600k586276/
    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/06/16/172/
    http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/17/science/sci-gaybrain17
    http://psych.fullerton.edu/rlippa/bbc_birthorder.htm
    http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12465295
    http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2006/06/26/brothers=gay.html
    http://www.medpagetoday.com/OBGYN/Pregnancy/3641
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617151845.htm
    http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local&id=6209976
    http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html

    Several US state High Courts, such as Massachusetts so many years ago now, have seen that scientific evidence and ruled for marriage equality based on that fact.  Since both race and sexual orientation are inborn and unchangeable, neither are valid excuses for discrimination. The OPINION of these US state High Courts COUNTS–the nasty opinion pushed below is totally worthless, and the anti-gay posting it is only talking about himself when he claims “no one is listening” to his meaningless nasty opinion.

  • Anonymous

    Readers, please note we have asked the few remaining anti-gay posters many questions in regard to their wild claims, but we never get a genuine answer.  One of those sad, confused anti-gay posters claims, for example, that his “equality under the Constitution is threatened” if other Americans have the same rights he has.  Just how does that work?

    Anti-gays never actually answer such questions, they just post more anti-gay hate speech and propaganda.

You may also like