In a big win for civil rights advocates and the gorgeous-seaside-resort-wedding industry, a Maine ballot initiative to legalize gay marriage is polling with huge support.
A recent poll by Critical Insights of Portland showed a majority of respondents supported gay marriage just three years after residents rejected a same-sex marriage law.
The survey indicated 57 percent of respondents supported legalizing same-sex marriage compared to 35 percent in opposition, while 8 percent were undecided. In 2009, voters struck down a gay marriage law approved by the Legislature.
“More than most election issues, that’s an issue where you have to take (polling) numbers with a grain of salt. I think those numbers will be closer on Election Day,” said Jim Melcher, associate professor of political science at the University of Maine at Farmington. “That said, I think there’s been a lot of momentum in favor of same-sex marriage around the country.”
The new Maine poll shows broad support. More than 60 percent of voters in most age groups — including 18- to 34-year-olds and 55- to 64-year-olds — said they would vote yes if the election were held now.
Those 65 and older were split on the question — with 44 percent in favor and 43 percent opposed — via the Dish.
If voters approve the measure, Maine will be the 8th state to legalize same-sex marriage. I can’t help but hope Illinois follows suit soon.
(c)2012 the Chicago Tribune
Distributed by MCT Information Services
The AP contributed to this story.
Do they actually conduct these polls?
Has anyone actually answered the phone and been asked?
Every poll seems to be different and will show a different spin according to how they interpurt the question and answers.
After all polls before the Carter and Reagan Election showed Carter with a lead, when in fact it was a landslide victory for President Reagan.
you’re basing your suspicion about polls on one from 30 years ago? Please go and do some research on how polls are conducted and what the confidence level and margin of error values actually mean. Statistics is a fascinating area of mathematics and while statistics can often be twisted in support of a particular view, the underlying math is sound and without it, none of modern scientific inquiry would be useful.
Its all crapola.
I guess I’m of two minds on this: yes, statistics is a science; on the other hand, framing poll questions appropriately is more of an art. What kind of answers one gets to a question depends so much on both how the question is framed and who is doing the asking….
Very true, but it is clear to me that the anti-SSM crowd poses the question in the worst possible light. NOM is famous for this. They will ask a question: “Do you think marriage is between one man and one woman?”
Well, anyone would answer that as a “yes,” but that’s not the point. Marriage is at least that. What do they mean? Between one man and an aardvark? It misses entirely the point of SSM.
A more accurate question would be: “Do you feel same-sex couples should be allowed to obtain state-issued marriage licenses?”
That addresses the whole issue of same-sex marriage.
I have seen so many of the polls by the religious-right that pose the question to illicit the answer they want. I do not see how my version of the question does anything other than be direct and to the point.
By the way, has there been any resolution as to how the wording will appear on November’s ballot? I thought the proposed wording was rather jaded and did not show neutrality and impartiality. It implied religious marriage as most marriages are in a church vs. a civil ceremony.
My answer to a purposely worded question such as you stated could be posed “Do you think marriage is between one man and one woman?” would be: “NO, I think marriage is between two people who love each other and are ready, willing and able to make a commitment to a life of happiness together.” That would surely throw them for a loop! There is always a way around a purposely deceptive worded question, the key is to recognize it, be smarter than the person posing the question and stay one step ahead of them. I can tell after reading many of your posts that you are just that.
Why, thank you! I have a following! “Mr. DeMille! I am ready for my close-up!”
Unfortunately, I think when it comes to polls, people are caught off guard and asked obvious questions. They give a quick answer and move on. NOM and other anti-SSM groups consider this the “gold standard” for an answer. A professional pollster would not.
A really good survey technique is to ask a certain quantity of questions – let’s say 50. Then, within those 50, maybe only 10 count, and consist of different phrasing of the same question. This gives a better sample.
The two questions I posed before, I think could be answered “yes” by the same person. If you ask someone if marriage is between a man and a woman, I think most people would respond that it is that without giving much thought to other options. It is like asking if you drop a ball, does it hit the ground? Well, yes, but not in space. If you asked the question if same-sex couples should be allowed to legally marry, I think most people would shrug and say “yes” and think not much of it.
But, sadly, I don’t think most people pause and look at the underlying question. Perhaps, their college professors were not as “sneaky” with questions as were mine!
I’m poled on many political topics from national politics to state politics, via phone, about three times a week. It’s pretty typical for me during a presidential election year, off years not so much. I gladly take the time to answer the questions even if it’s during dinner time.
so the pollster already know your answers and opinion
these polls are not random if they use the same list
it’s quite possible they all have my number on their list – but as I said, I get calls from national politics, and state – questions that are geared towards republicans and democrats all varying issues and groups. I have no clue why I get called so often.
Why are you in the pipeline to that extent?
In contrast, we turn down solicitations to take a poll. Waste of time to try to figure out who’s really asking.
I was polled a lot until my landline number was changed. I think it has to do with whether or not your number is listed or if you included your telephone number when you registered to vote.
The polls, at least the one I took, are BS and rigged to get the answer that they want. I was called and asked to take a 10 question poll on today’s issues. The first question was on wind power, the second on homosexual marriage, and when I answered no on the homosexuals, they hung up. Not hard to tell what they were looking for.
Congratulations to Mainers for respecting individual rights where it matters!
What about the individual rights of those apposed? Can you honestly say you respect them? Then why should they respect yours?
Ugh.
I don’t understand your logic here. Those who are opposed to gay marriage do not stand to lose access to civil marriage, or any other government benefits or standing under the law.
If you refer to an individual’s right to disagree and voice opinion, that’s not at stake either. People will continue to be able to say they don’t like gay marriage, just like there are people who say they don’t like inter-racial marriage (but it’s legal for interracial couples to wed).
Okay, I’ll explain it;
Liberals (or those on the Left) rarely show any respect to the opinions of those on the Right. They DEMAND respect form everyone, but show very little in return. This forum is a classic case in point. You would think that the BDN forum (or comment section, if that’s what it’s called) is the exclusive domain of the Left. Anyone differing from the radical Left’s position on anything is pilloried for having the audacity to sully their sacred ground. People can disagree respectfully, but I don’t see that happening with the Left. They go out of their way to be disrespectful, and in the end, it hurts their cause.
You are so hung up on this one issue, you can’t (or refuse) to see the big picture. If you WANT respect, you have to be willing to GIVE respect.
Now I understand that to some, THIS IS the only issue that matters. But to a lot more, this is only one issue. Actually, to most (I believe) this issue ranks relatively low on the list of priorities in life. (Unless your life revolves around the passage of SSM, in which case that’s sad.)
But originally you asked (emphasis mine):
Disrespect for differing opinions does not infringe on anyone’s rights. It is in fact everyone’s right to freedom of speech that will continue to allow disagreement to be voiced.
As for showing respect, I do indeed show respect to differing opinions here. However, when people show base disrespect by calling homosexuals perverted, diseased, undeserving of life… well, I call them out on their hurtful language and how wrong they are.
As for your assumption on my political views is flawed, based on a stereotype of those who support gay marriage. In fact, I am a registered Republican. I am fiscally conservative, socially liberal—a Libertarian Republican, if you will.
Yes, the right to disagree! Sorry if that wasn’t clear. Your political affiliation is irrelevant to me. But you must admit, this issue ranks pretty highly on your give-a-damn meter.
Oh, I absolutely do give a damn on whether I have access to civil marriage or not! I don’t see where that’s been in question.
It hasn’t. Never has been. You have made it VERY clear, over & over & over & over &………
I have read this exchange between you and ConvivialVisits time and again, and I have yet to see your point. BDN does not, as far as I know, weed out conservative opinions (unlike NOM who regularly weeds out liberal opinions). You are entitled to voice your opinion. No one is stopping you. I have heard far, far more hatred and vitriol about “filthy homosexuals” from the conservative religious side than I have about “nutty Christians.” Did it ever occur to you that you might be in the minority opinion on this subject?
And, yes, this is an important issue for us because it affects US. It does not affect you in the slightest.
I fail to see your “rights” under attack. You have the “right” to voice your opinion. You do not have the “right” to deny the rights of minorities when those minorities in no way affect you, your marriage, or any aspect of your life, or the well-being of the country.
So, please explain to me what “individual rights” are being denied to you.
I don’t understand your point still….
Abby doesn’t have one.
Might I suggest you seek out comments written on this issue by …. oh say …. SonofBangor …. particularly in the recently closed comment section of Bob Emrich’s opinion piece …. or for that matter anyone other than ConvivialVisits? I’ve been reading your interactions with many but fail to see you engage those opposed to marriage equality in the same manner as you do supporters.
Even after this”explanation”, you make no case for how your “rights” are hindered. None of us has no right to have their opinions accepted by others, even if backed by good data and information. Piloried and other hyperbolic descriptions of criticsm are dished out by both sides (IMO, more by the conservatives).
If minority rights had been decided by the majority throughout our nations history, many states would enslave African-Americans still today, and women would still be fighting for the right to vote.
It absolutely will infringe on our right to speak against gay marriage. It will be a crime in the name of discrimination to speak out or teach against this in any public institution such as a public school. Though supposedly churches will not be forced to marry homosexuals (at first) the problem will be if someone in one of our churches says he is homosexual and wants to teach Sunday school it will end up a legal battle to stop it.
There is a bigger picture here though. The bible says we are in the last days and I believe God is about to judge the ungodly and that there is a very short space of time left to repent. The reason our world is getting so bad is found in prophecy for the last days.
“Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. ”
(Jud 1:7)
God hates homosexuality (the sin of Sodom). You have a short grace period to change sides because right now you are on the wrong side. You are on the loosing side.
And don’t embolden you selves with the false minister of the world who side with you on the issue of homosexuality.
The Bible says they would come:
“But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.
For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;
(2Pe 2:1-6)
Interesting how many times the Bible uses Sodom the city of homosexuality as an example of ungodliness!
The bible says far, far more in favor of slavery than it says against homosexuality.
Even Pat Robertson acknowledges that some things written in the bible (such as blessing to take slaves from neighboring countries) are to be considered as from a time when we did not understand each other’s humanity as well. We treat each other better as we learn about one another.
We have likewise learned more about homosexuality, and found that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with gays and lesbians, we are just built differently, as are left-handed people. It’s a trait.
Am I claiming a genetic cause? No. But I am affirming that it is not a conscious choice I make that I am gay. The true sin would be to squander this life I have been given in denial of a trait I have, never meeting a soul mate to make life that much better.
Any concerns you have about ‘crime in the name of discrimination’ has no relation to civil marriage— we settled that issue in 2005, when we added sexual orientation to the same protection laws which protect you from discrimination based on your choice of religious view.
Oh, and those laws did NOT protect the sunday school teacher fired from her Catholic Church for simply writing a letter to the editor in favor of gay marriage (2009). Why? Because churches have religious freedom to discriminate.
Interesting how many times the Bible’s point is missed by people who exploit social dictates written for nomadic tribes who lived millennia ago.
After reading your first two sentences, my response was Huh?, not so. The things went progressively downhill, in fact off the cliff. Remember that the cheif crime cited against the Sodom ruffians was inhospitality, a top crime in that culture.
How does the civil marriage of another couple affect your individual rights?
Asked by too many others, and already answered. Try to keep up.
And, yet still remains unanswered.
Actually, never answered. I would be pleased to hear what you have to say as to how your individual rights are being affected by the passage of marriage equality though.
thank you for reading
Asked but CERTAINLY not answered with any degree of logic.
Huh?
She is saying how she learned to express herself in some of reform school is how we all should do so here, I’d have to guess.
So sorry… should read “reformed” school.
I respect your opposition to SSM by allowing you not to have one if you don’t wish to.
Thank you for assuming I an against SSM. Unfortunately YOU ARE WRONG!
Well then WTH? You’re just trolling the board, playing devil’s advocate to get a reaction.
Au contraire! I’m asking questions and making people defend their positions.
But thanks for playing.
“I’m asking questions and making people defend their positions. … thanks for playing.”
So am I.
Do you play well with others such that you deserve to be respected for how you do things ?
Fine, then answer my points, and earn get the respect you crave in the old fashioned, earn it.
This is serious civil and human rights issue on the ballot, so can you show how you respect that and those of us that disagree with you politically as much as you have said we must respect your positions, please ?
I think it’s just trolling….
It appears that you only ask questions of and make only those who support equal marriage defend their positions …… why not do the same for those who oppose it?
They think they are gods ?
Here’s a question for you Abby….why the screen name Abbyisgod? Are you religious?
Re: “playing devil’s advocate to get a reaction.”
I’ll give him one, too, given that is what my individual freedom is all about.
I wonder how often he asks “no compromise” conservatives about “the individual rights of those (that they) apposed? (sic,)” and “Can you honestly say (that) you respect them?”
I’m just asking that relative to “Then why should THEY respect yours?” and how we all know that if you want respect,
you must give it.
Has anyone else ever noticed how liberals are held to a higher ethical and moral standard than conservatives hold their own leadership or themselves ?
I have come to think it is because conservatives need good, honest, liberal, serious solutions to oppose, or else they would no political positions, at all. : )
Must I respect that or your demands that I should ?
I would then ask you all, do people who have to demand that others must have respect for their position, really understand the very concept of “respect”, itself, enough to be making demands that respect must be given to them or their political positions ?
So that makes me wonder why people whose heart of heaths,
is such that they would DEMAND that others MUST give their political positions respect, would think that they are such experts on the “true meaning of marriage” ?
Go figure that one out.
A vote to legalize gay marriage is a vote for individual rights, equality for all under the law, and respecting both your neighbors’ right to their own pursuit of happiness and reality of the society we all live in, itself, anyway.
If you are not going to marry a gay person, which is and will remain your right, even if you are licensed by the State to marry other people, how does it matter to you in your life , Abbyisgod ?
Have a nice day.
Having a GREAT day, thanks! You almost made sense, until you used the wrong pronoun. Then you lost all credibility with me.
“You almost made sense, until you used the wrong pronoun. Then you lost all credibility with me. ”
I lost all credibility with you for using he instead of she ?
Presuming that you really mean to say that I lost all MY credibility with you … which should be expressed by you having written that ” until you used the wrong pronoun. You lost all your credibly with me ” … so besides differently than you do your own, how do you measure my credibility, if not by the validity of my points on the topic , Ms. ” Abby… is … God” ?
ROTFLOL
THEN, speaking of credibility, do you disagree that the default in proper English is the male gender if there might ever be any doubt ?
Why am I not credible, IYHO, for thinking both that God is a He, and that Abby might be a deminutive for Abner , as in Lil’Abner ? Aren’t you just mistaken, again ?
So, on point, I am fully aware that that by actually taking a biased obstructionist, like yourself, seriously and respecting what you actually say is exposing myself to a cheap, common trap, because you do not want respect or an open discussion of the issues, just concurrence with the coyly worded, coded, biased, regressive agenda that you have been primed to repeat, ad nauseam and with no compromise, ever.
It is a trap to extend the respect to you that you say you want, because once done, you can suddenly be a trite, fluffy, anti-intellectual and play to your peanut gallery, implying that I’m just a smartassed liberal, anyway, to confirm your and your cohorts own bigotries, while avoiding the issues.
But relative to your credibility, if not smart, serious, respectful and with tolerance, how do you measure credibly or expect the political issues of the day and the State to be resolved, exactly ?
Should we not judge that by your own words and approach ?
Your measure has been taken by all, here, thank you.
Good day to you, Ms., and don’t forget to vote in November.
….
Not.
No.
No in the least.
——
That would require at least an 8th grade education.
You have the right not to marry a gay person.
Oh what a relief! And here I thought if the measure passes I would be forced to divorce my husband and marry a woman!
” Oh what a relief! And here I thought if the measure passes I would be forced to divorce my husband and marry a woman! ”
That is exactly why the law needs to be explained to some people, over and over again and voted upon until the State gets it right.
So fine, now that you know that you do not have to,
IF you wanted to, can please tell us what you think are the three best reasons that the Big Government should not allow you to do so, while respecting the traditional American values of separation of Church and State, please, Abbyisgod ?
Thank you, in advance.
I heard that people who love ice cream would be forced to marry ice cream.
“You have the right not to marry a gay person.”
Even if you are a religious official, and licensed BY THE STATE to marry other people, repeatedly.
That fact that you must be licensed and/or met certain requirements of the State to legally marry couples, kind of calls into question the contention that marriage is strictly a religious affair defined by God.
If that were true why would a minister, who believes marriage is defined by God, submit to paying for a State licence to perform weddings, as is required in many jurisdictions ?
The minister gets the license to comply with the civil marriage ceremony, not the religious one. There certainly is no reason a couple could not go to an NP, get legally married, and then go to a church to have a religious ceremony. Most clergy opt for the license to kill two birds with one stone, so to speak. The clergy acts as an agent for the state which recognizes that a church ceremony officiated by a registered agent is sufficient to meet the needs of the enacting the marriage license.
If this were Europe, you’d often see a couple get married at City Hall by an official, and then go to the church for a religious ceremony. Here, I think it is the idea of one-stop shopping.
The clergy having a license to marry someone is merely a convenience for the couple. It is not required for a religious ceremony. However, as I said, most couples don’t want to do two ceremonies.
“The minister gets the license to comply with the civil marriage ceremony, not the religious one. ”
Exactly proving that the religious definition of marriage , at the very best, is not complete.
Okay, we agree, so what are the civil objections, not the religious ones, to the proposed law as it appears on the November ballot ?
That is important if we believe in the traditional American value of separation of Church and State and where ones freedom of religion is only protected by the same laws that protect others from having to abide by the beliefs of your religion.
Again, don’t think you are going to argue logic with the religious crowd. It isn’t going to happen.
As I have stated before, Homophobia is the last form of hatred still sanctioned by the Supreme Court. Don’t expect these hatemongerers to let go of that easily.
Very true. I would say that in order for SCOTUS to rule, they need a case before them. I am all for waiting for that iron-clad, rock-solid case, to nail the lid shut on this matter once and for all.
Do recall that it took until 1967 for the right case to come up through the courts in Loving v. Virginia re: inter-racial marriage to hit SCOTUS. When it finally did, the vote was 9 to 0. I’m sure there are bible-thumpers out there today who find their knickers in a twist with the idea of an inter-racial couple being allowed to legally marry.
SSM is just another step toward equality for all in the USA. It will happen. I want it to be a slam-dunk.
When it passes SCOTUS, I am sure there will be accusations of gay-mafia, etc. I wonder what the accusations were in 1967….
I was only 12 at the time but pretty much a “news junkie” even back then. The Vietnam War is of big interest when you’re 12 and the Draft still existed.
My recollection was the bible-thumpers were all up in arms against the idea of “mixing the races” and “how the children would be harmed.” “God wouldn’t approve” and so forth. I don’t recall hearing many quotes from the bible, but it was a different time. There also was a lot of the “ick” factor going on.
Sound familiar?
Coincidentally, 1967 was the year the movie, “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner,” was released. Just a knock-out cast – Hepburn, Tracy, and Portier. Tracy’s last movie before he died.
The other story going on there was that Hepburn and Tracy “lived in sin,” as he was a married, Catholic man, who could not divorce because his religion was wound around the axle about divorce.
People talk about the “good old days.” They weren’t that damn good in many respects. It is what I call “selective amnesia.”
Sorry, you misunderstood my post. I was stating that if you as an individual do not believe in gay marriage, than you have the right not to marry a gay person. Who performs the aforementioned ceremony (that you may choose not to participate in) is irrelevant.
No , I got your point and was adding to it that even if you are licensed by the State of Maine to officiate at marriages, the law as it appears on the ballot says you are NOT obliged to marry gay people in or outside of your church, if you do not want to.
I was saying that NO ONE, not even people acting as proxy State officials, is going to be forced to ever marry gays, in anyway, nor even to have to allow it in their churches.
The point is that “”You have the right not to marry a gay person.” is absolutely true, on EVERY possible level.
It is a point that needs to driven home before the out of State money starts their ads telling lies about forcing gay marriage on your religion.
Do we all understand and agree on the fact that is what the proposed law actually says ?
But if that church lets its facilities be used for a wedding reception of someone getting married by someone licensed to marry outside that church it will not be able to discriminate against homosexuals who want to do the same.
This idea that it is going to be hands off the church when it comes to homosexuality is false. There is really very little protection at all in this bill for the church.
It depends on how they characterize the facility. If it is a public business owned by the church, it is subject to anti-discrimination laws that protect people from race, sexual orientation, or their choice of religion.
If it is their church, or their church’s grounds, they are protected.
And we’ve had laws about this since 2005, so it’s not a new thing. The truth is these type of lawsuits rarely happen.
So now receptions are equivalent to the marriage ceremony? Those big Polish weddings are actually three ceremonies?
Yeah-receptions are not the religious ceremony. However, if the reception takes place in the church, then it’s covered. If it takes place at a hall that is rented out to the general public, then it is covered under the CURRENTLY EXISTING non-discrimination laws in Maine that the people voted for in 2005.
And how many church “social halls” are rented out to non-church members. In my church you are lucky to use the social hall IF you are a church member.
Baloney. The only time this occurs is when the church ventures out from under its umbrella of religious protection and dips its toes into the secular world. It does this by renting its halls and facilities on the open market. Once it does this, it cannot discriminate against same-sex couples any more than it can discriminate against an inter-racial couple. Simple solution? Stay out of the “for profit” business and they won’t fall under the “public accommodation” laws.
Ridiculous. The church has every right to stipulate the circumstance that their rented facility is to be used for. If they are that unsure of the renter’s intentions, simply choose not to allow the use of their facility. Their rights are not compromised at all here.
Their rights are already being respected. If you are against Gay marraige, don’t marry a Gay person.
marriage is a trinity union between a man, a woman, and God. i would be all for equal rights under the law, have the same last name, have rings, have a ceramony, have the tax status, have it all, but it is not possible for two men, or two women to be “married”. it would have to be called something else, that is fact, unless we change deffinitions of words, but that still would not change the fact that it is a Holy union that is between a man, woman, and God. every thing else, have it, but it just can not be a marriage.
//////
well yea, i understand that, but i hope you see what i am saying, and know that i am not against anyone, i do believe that everyone should be able to enjoy all the same rights. all i am saying is it can’t be a “marriage”, for example, i am a man, i want to have homosexual sex with a woman, it is not possible, no matter what kind of kinky stuff goes on, i suppose i can call it homosexual sex all day long, but at it’s root, it is not. i am not trying to offend here, i am just trying to think with an open mind, if the true nature of this debate is equality, and that is the goal, what would be the problem with giving the ssm initiative a differant name? i would bet that support, and acceptance would increase, and if it is truelly equality that is sought after, then what’s the problem with that? i hope this helps, and doesn’t hurt this debate, but it is very tricky trying to see the world through other peoples eyes. i will defend to the grave, gays, and straights alike in the struggle for equality, but we must fight together for equality, not for the words we will call it.
Here is the easy answer. The State issues “Certificates of Marriage” not a “Certificate of Civil Union.” God, nor any other imagined entity, deity, or religion holds the copyright to the word marriage. What you suggest is called, “Separate but Equal” which is illegal, as SCOTUS has already determined. Christianity has hijacked the word and called it theirs, but like most of their ceremonies, they took it from other religions, cultures, etc.
Here is a suggestion …… call your union ‘holy matrimony’.
According to your personal theology that may be correct, but please don’t impose your personal theology on the rest of us.
interesting, but since six states and the District of Columbia have made marriage legal between same sex couples, it is possible for them to be married. Oh, and there are 18,000 California same sex couples who are also married.
Did you opt for a wholly religious marriage rather than getting a civil marriage license prior to your ceremony and having it signed and sent on to the state? If you so strongly believe that marriage is a religious rite and not a civil contract have you since declined to partake of the rights, benefits and responsibilities the government conveys to you and your spouse? The USA has treated marriage as a civil contract since before its inception.
Further ….. if your definition of marriage as a trinity union is your devout belief, should couples who marry in a civil setting (without a person of the clergy officiating) and/or do not believe the same (trinity union) be using the word marriage?
well, it’s nice to see none of you are bitter over it. i do notice that some seem all distrought over my words, and possibly too dim witted to see that i was on your side in the whole equality plight of yours. your misinterperatations, and attacks against me , and what i have posted just screams tolerance, and acceptance of others views. so here’s the thing, you won’t hear from me again on this site, but you take your cause, and your anger and have fun with it, but in the future, don’t attack the people that are just trying to understand, and possibly help you with your cause, you kind of hurt my feelings a little by being so rude and intolerant of my veiws, but hey, maybe when you are all done crying and carrying on with your oh woe is me, nobody understands our sad, horrible plight to be just like others b.s., maybe it’ll be my turn to rise up and demand reparations from your oppresive, and repressive attacks against my views, and desire to understand. untill then, any of you that were trying to be mean, and intolerant towards me, you can go pound sand, to all the rest of you that are just reading this, trying to understand my views, are dead set against my views, or just have no oppinion at all, thanks, it’s nice to see not everyone has to resort to crazy distortions, and made up oppions that read as fact to simple minded.
maybe they’re those “angry gays” that i’ve heard about, the kind that arn’t really gay, they just think they are because their fathers mollested them, and now they’re just angry at the world because they hate their own gayness. see what just happened there? it sucks when people are rude, and mean to you, think about it. you won’t hear from me again. good luck to you all.
Say what???? I asked you some questions based on your belief that marriage is a” trinity union”. Please point out where I was rude and intolerant, crying and carrying on or demonstrated oppression against you ….. or hurt your feelings….
The entity that tells you to attack your fellow Mainers who are LGBT is not “God,” that influence on you comes from the opposite direction–and is NOT involved in anyone else’s marriage. I feel sorry for your spouse if Satan is a partner in your “marriage.”
“it would have to be called something else, that is fact, unless we change deffinitions of words”, AGAIN.
Conservatives opposed Civil Union Laws before they began to say;
” Please, back turn the clock, and let us move the goal line because you liberals,
and what is right has some momentum. ”
Romney Reaffirms Opposition to Marriage, or Unions, for Gay Coupleswww.nytimes.com/…/romney-reaffirms-opposition-to-marri…
by Michael Barbaro –
Like many conservative Republicans, Mitt Romney is opposednot only to …
Asked why he opposed civil unions, in particular, he explained that in many cases …
Yet the Commonwealth of Massachusettes became the first member of our union to legalize
Gay Marraige while under St. Mitt’s tenure!
You know, I hadn’t put that together! He was not only responsible for the precursor of “Obamacare,” it was under his watch that Mass got the gay marry! Now THAT is real irony (not the Alanis type…)!
It is cynical politics played to lowest base instincts of a voting block on the right that the corporate GOP leadership does not represent or really like.
Except power, what does Romney really want ?
Then, if the right wing wins both the WH and the Congress in the next election, only the names of of the too liberal and too conservative, no compromise ideologically extremists will change. It will be a whole Nation run by Pauly LePages who are only against things and not for anything that can actually ever be done. What does the new right OR THE GOP, two very different things, really stand for ,not just against ? If you can’t figure that out , because they don’t ,or can’t, really say and keep their base, how you could cast a vote for them ?
Remember, the holy union is just that. The only one that counts for society is the state performed or licensed one.
Getting people to say they support SMS is not the same as getting them to the polls to VOTE for it.
The gay marriage may pass…but no way is it going to pass 57% to 35%. Any poll done by Critical Insights, it probably is questionable what the real results were.
Two years ago, Critical Insights polls said that the gay marriage law passed by the legislature would not be repealed…as we all know the opposite happened. Critical Insights polls also indicated that Paul LePage would come in 6 out of 7-man Republican primary race…just the one week before the primary. When Critical Insights does the polling, it doesn’t mean much.
My suggestion to gay-marriage supporters, next time have the polling done by a company that is not owned and operated by two Democrat activists.
As a gay-marriage supporter, I have no control over who conducts polls.
I’m not here to defend this poll, nor dismiss it outright. It is encouraging to see that support has been growing, but you are absolutely correct that the polls in 2009 showed we would defeat the veto by a narrow margin rather than lose by a narrow margin.
Our work is unchanged— hold sincere conversations with Mainers regarding the importance of civil marriage to families in Maine. Even if we don’t win in November, I think it’s clear that public opinion is inexorably turning toward agreement that equal access to civil marriage is the right thing to do. If I cannot marry in 2013, I’m hopeful I will before 2019.
I respect your opinion and the way you’ve commented on the article. November results will be what they are…but questionable polls don’t do good service to anyone.
I agree. Even a small wave can erode a mountain!
Especially since it’s only the ‘Olde Fogies’ that remain a demographic that is still majority opposed. As they putz off…well, then the numbers become much easier to predict.
They didn’t ask me.
Why was this an article from the Chicago Tribune?
Because it was written by Megan Crepeau, who works at the Chicago Tribune?
Note that it was written for a CT audience since the last sentence indicates that the author would like to see the same thing happen in Illinois.
Nobody polled me.
While their 57% is a majority, it’s hardly a mandate. Looks more like wishful thinking than a legitimate poll.
You are correct— we absolutely need to continue to hold sincere conversations with our neighbors, friends, coworkers and communities regarding the importance of civil marriage to same-sex couples.
I am hopeful that November’s vote will extend equal treatment by our government in civil marriage here in Maine, but it’s absolutely not a sure thing.
All that talking is what is causing your neighbors, friends coworkers and communities to run from you. Nobody likes being confronted by boring conversationalist.
Actually, the opposite is true. It’s much easier to oppose something like same sex marriage when it’s an abstract concept as to who it affects. Our experience is that most Mainers don’t really think that much about same-sex marriage one way or the other. Once they see and hear from the people directly affected, opinions change.
Or they stay the same – not really thinking that much about same-sex marriage one way or the other.
November will tell.
Just a note for you: no one likes being confronted by a narrow-minded conversationalist either.
Which is why a rarely respond to your posts! But you have proven that you are not always narrow-minded, when you choose not to be, so there is hope for you yet!
Oh, I love that! “I know you are, but what am I?” Pee-Wee Herman used to do that bit. Too funny.
I knew you could relate, that’s why I posted it!
You have always struck me as a Pee-Wee Herman aficionado!
Next, in my experience, will come the “I’m rubber, but you liberals are glue” desperate puerile “defense” , or denial,
to be more accurate, of any facts that do not fit the political conservatives faith based beliefs in their betters’, the 1%’s, political mythology.
” Which is why a rarely respond to your posts! ”
My bet is that you do not very often do so works out just fine for him, too.
You should have gathered that from his comment, too, or at least you might have,if you were more broad minded.
You are confrontational aren’t you. How few people run from you?
You are talking about a state whose governor was elected with 38% and acts like he has a mandate, so in comparison 57% is a a rather large number.
Okay, if that works in your mind.
That just it, 57% is a majority and that is all it takes. What the anti-SSM crowd refuses to see is that even with majority passage they lose no rights, it has have zero effect on their lives, and does not effect their ability to get married. Other than a religious one (which has no meaning in a civil debate) there is no good reason to deny SSM.
Okay, if that works in your mind.That’s not why I would vote for it, but if it works for you….
the anti equal rights people called 53% a mandate the last time
And they were wrong! Happy?
How do feel about what kind of mandate Gov. LePage has then ?
Granted it off topic but it is very germane to your contention.
As I see it, LePage is doing the best he can, considering the condition King & Baldacci left he state in. Instead of trying to be part of the solution, too many on the Left are doing everything they can to hinder him. Hey, that’s your right, but you can’t cry when the same thing happens to Obama.
Sure, I wish LePage had won with a majority, but that’s what happens when the Democrats split their votes. He won fair and square.
I have no problem with people disagreeing with him (and neither does he, I’m sure), but all this sniping from the sideline does nothing to help fix the state. When the next election rolls around, vote him out if you can. Just like what the Republicans plan to do to Obama.
And you are correct, this is off topic so PLEASE EVERYONE, back tot he topic at hand.
You did not answer the question which you raised about validity of 57 % not being a legitimate mandate, rather you just suggested your own contentions are very flexible if your politics are going to hurt by applying your own contentions to them .
Why should people respect that ?
Polling 100% only happens in an election, and then only 100% of those who vote. Since you were left out, care to give your responses? As for 57% being a mandate, I’ve seen lots of politicians claim that. Of course, it only takes 50.01% to win.
here’s an idea,,, if you weren’t born in maine, then you can’t vote here. take your vote to the state you were born in and change that state instead of this one..
What an un-American concept.
Are you so opposed to people being treated equally by our government that you want to abandon our nation’s values?
values! ! ! lmao
Yes, values. Maine values at that!
After all, our state extended the right to vote to women ahead of the nation. We allowed interracial marriage ahead of the nation. We opposed slavery ahead of the nation. And we have made great strides in treating gay and lesbian citizens better in our state— we do not forbid adoption by same sex couples, and we have a limited “domestic partnership” registry that allows same sex couples some status in regards to hospital visitation and estate inheritance (though not nearly as comprehensive as that from civil marriage).
The idea that someone should give up their right to vote because they move to another state is very anti-American. One of the basic principles of being the United States is that US citizens can move from state to state without passport or any requirement of government permission.
i take it your from away, i hope after november you find your way back. and if i’m mistaking, i hope after november you move to a state that shares your beliefs. have a great day
Nope, I live in Maine.
And honestly, it’s ridiculous to tell people to move away simply because you disagree with them on a single issue. I surely won’t be telling you to leave once I have access to civil marriage, whether that is this year or not.
Speak for yourself. You sound incredibly ignorant. Believe it or not, there are many people from Maine who disagree with you and I’m one of them. Maine is my home and it always will be home. I’ll vote and live how I want. Back off, buddy.
applauds
Guess you’re serious. So sorry for your condition.
It’s unfortunate that some people forget we live in a republic and are free to move and live wherever we want in this country. Hostile attitudes like that are un-American.
Nope not going anywhere and no one is going to make me either.
I’m from Maine. I’m happy to say that your backwards ideology represents only yourself, and not the rest of the fine citizens in this great state.
However, he got 5-9 “likes”. Scary.
The Maine Ethics Commission caught out-of-state anti-gays committing criminal acts that poisoned our political process and THREW the 2009 anti-gay Hate Vote. Take up your issue with the out-of-state anti-gays.
Can’t figure out if this is serious or sarcasm so won’t rate or comment.
Like to hear the Gov’s views on this topic, see if he gets past his 30% base……let’s see who that includes, the Maine Heritage Policy Club (all flatlanders), the two Charlies (they don’t want to allow young people to vote), oh yeah, that transplanted Mainer, (like our Gov), Howie Carr…..
Tedjohn I am sure Mr. LePage would love to join in with his opinion except his plate is kind of full right now. It seems he has issues with not only most free thinking Mainers but also The President, The IRS, Congresswoman Pingree, The Supreme Court just to name a few.
Maine led the nation on other issues of equality in the past — we allowed interracial marriage in the late 1800, well before Loving v Virginia made it legal nationwide (1969). We allowed women the right to vote ahead of our nation’s constitutional amendment granting women’s suffrage. Even during times of slavery, Maine was the terminus for the underground railroad, a refuge for slaves seeking freedom in Canada.
I hope that Mainers will join me in voting for equality this November, for ALL Maine families deserve the important protections civil marriage conveys, to protect the lives they build together, and the children they raise together.
The first elected woman Governor of a US State was Nellie Tayloe Ross of Wyoming.
Wyoming entered the Union as a State where women already possessed the right to vote.The first woman elected to the Senate was Hattie Wyatt Caraway of Arkansas.
The first woman elected to The US House was Jeannette Pickering Rankin from Montana. The first State where Gay’s could marry was Iowa. None of the above seem particularly egalitarian or liberal. Vermont New Hampshire New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Wisconsin and Minnesota never had laws against interracial marriage. Maine repealed theirs early, but were by no means in the vanguard. Not a point, just history.
“The first State where Gay’s could marry was Iowa.”
Nope, Massachusetts…
Same sex marriage wow, who would have ever thought ! I say give em what they want and lets move onto more important issues like health care/elderly care/financial stability/rebuilding this nations integrity and respect etc…
Thanks for your support!
It may not be an important issue for you since it doesn’t affect your life, but those of us who have been in decades-long relationships with our soul mates absolutely need the important protections civil marriage conveys.
Unless you or your spouse are looking to switch teams, I have a news flash for you Cooter….. IT DOESN’T AFFECT YOUR RELATIONSHIP EITHER! Where do you knuckledragging-neanderthals get this stuff from??!! Oh yeah I remember now. Lush Rimjob, Pat Robertson, and the other FOX News idealogues
Was this response meant for me? It sounds like we are both in favor of civil marriage for same-sex couples.
Amen. In the end, it’s ridiculous that this is even an issue, when there’s so much more stuff that’s fracked up in the world. Pass it, everyone’s happy, move on.
Well, it would not be an issue if the bible-thumpers hadn’t gotten their knickers all in a twist about an issue that has nothing to do with them. The Legislature and the Governor handled it correctly back in 2009. Now, because of a rigged election that even the opposition leader agreed was “over the top,” we have to go through this all again.
you don’t know what your talking about..
You think the government solves problems, don’t ya…
We need dirty stinky factories to provide jobs to the people who are now on assistance….
respect and integrity is not important.. I personally don’t care what people think of us.
Come on, a poll from a company based in far left liberal land Portland, what would you expect the outcome to be!
And statistics was your college major?
I’m thinking they have never met….never mind college.
Just what polling company would you believe? Here is a list I compiled a while back. Take your pick.
Of the 9 polls I list below, 7 show more than 50% approval of SSM. None show opposition above 50%, or show more opposition than approval. These are 2012 polls.
A June 6 CNN/ORC International poll showed that a majority of Americans support gay marriage being legalized at 54%, while 42% are opposed. The poll also showed that 70% of Democrats and 60% of independent voters say same-sex marriages should be legal, while 72% of Republicans opposed.
A May 22 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed that 54% of Americans would support a law in their state making same-sex marriage legal, with 40% opposed.
A May 17-20 ABC News/Washington Post poll showed that 53% believe same-sex marriage should be legal, with only 39% opposed, a low-water mark for opposition in any national poll so far.
A May 10 USA Today/Gallup Poll, taken one day after Barack Obama became the first sitting President to express support for same-sex marriage, showed 51% of Americans agreed with the President’s endorsement.
A May 8 Gallup Poll showed plurality support for same-sex marriage nationwide, with 50% in favor and 48% opposed.
An April Pew Research Center poll showed support for same-sex marriage at 47%, while opposition fell to an all-time low of 43%.
A March 7-10 ABC News/Washington Post poll found 52% of adults thought it should be legal for same-sex couples to get married, while 42% disagreed and 5% were unsure.
A March survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found 52% of Americans supported allowing same-sex couples to marry, while 44% opposed.
A February 29 – March 3 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found 49% of adults supported allowing same-sex couples to marry, while 40% opposed.
stay classy- bigots
Lesbian couple kicked out of city park during maternity photo shoot in Kentucky. “If you come back and bring those type of people, you will be removed from the park”——-The problem, according to Richmond Human Rights Chairperson Sandra Anez-Powell, is that what the gatekeeper did is not illegal in Kentucky.“It is legal to discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation here in Richmond,” Anez-Powell said. “They can be kicked out of public places, fired from their jobs and denied housing, a right that heterosexual people like me enjoy. The local human rights commission has fought for the last four years to protect the rights of every human being, but the Richmond City Commissioners have chosen to table this issue. The last administration did the same.”
So- I assume this poll was done in the Southern Maine area…where this just might win- however- poll the rest of the State. You aren’t winning in Maine this year.
They called people all across Maine. The Portland-Press Herald has more demographic information from the poll. Toward your question:
1st District: 63% in favor of same sex marriage, 29% opposed.
2nd District: 52% in favor of same sex marriage, 41% opposed.
http://www.pressherald.com/special/voterpolls.html
What is interesting to me is the clear indication that this is a generational issue:
18-34 year olds: 67% in favor, 27% opposed
55-64 year olds: 61% in favor, 35% opposed
65 and older: 44% in favor, 43% opposed
And no, I don’t know why they aren’t listing 35-54 year olds there. :)
oops
Are you really incapable of understanding that words can have multiple meanings especially when it comes to different contexts? The word marriage in a legal context has NOTHING to do with God and that remains true whether or not gays have the right to get married.
Well, except for the fact that they can, that’s a really nice post.
ConvivialVisits you seem to come out, when a gay marriage story shows up…
what do you think of Obama selling arms to the mexican mob drug dealers?
Obama hasn’t sold any arms to mexican mob drug dealers, that’s ridiculous. The secret service wouldn’t allow him into such a risky situation.
If you are referring to the Justice Dept.’s failed “fast and furious” program, I think that is a travesty and I support congressional investigation.
BUT, this has nothing at all to do with civil marriage for same-sex couples. Of course I comment on these stories, I have a keen interest in seeing this unconstitutional discrimination eliminated.
Me too! Eliminate civil marriage.
Well, that would pass Constitutional scrutiny, and end the discrimination against same sex couples in this regard… but I think there’s a better case for extending equal access to civil marriage than there is for eliminating the 1,100+ benefits it conveys.
I bet your wife wouldn’t agree.
That ship has sailed. We are stuck with it.
In a truly random poll there may have been too few individuals polled who were 35-54 to be statistically significant.
in a truly random poll ALL participants MUST be included. If the age group is too thin on numbers the pollster can include the thin number in an all encompassing 35 to 64 or 18 to 54 group. You can not dis-include an age group to puff your poll.
Where is your PROOF this poll was “puffed”?
I don’t like to repeat stuff here, but I did post these poll results elsewhere. They fit in this dialogue, too.
Of the 9 polls I list below, 7 show more than 50% approval of SSM. None show opposition above 50%, or more opposition than approval. These are 2012 polls.
A June 6 CNN/ORC International poll showed that a majority of Americans support gay marriage being legalized at 54%, while 42% are opposed. The poll also showed that 70% of Democrats and 60% of independent voters say same-sex marriages should be legal, while 72% of Republicans opposed.
A May 22 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed that 54% of Americans would support a law in their state making same-sex marriage legal, with 40% opposed.
A May 17-20 ABC News/Washington Post poll showed that 53% believe same-sex marriage should be legal, with only 39% opposed, a low-water mark for opposition in any national poll so far.
A May 10 USA Today/Gallup Poll, taken one day after Barack Obama became the first sitting President to express support for same-sex marriage, showed 51% of Americans agreed with the President’s endorsement.
A May 8 Gallup Poll showed plurality support for same-sex marriage nationwide, with 50% in favor and 48% opposed.
An April Pew Research Center poll showed support for same-sex marriage at 47%, while opposition fell to an all-time low of 43%.
A March 7-10 ABC News/Washington Post poll found 52% of adults thought it should be legal for same-sex couples to get married, while 42% disagreed and 5% were unsure.
A March survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found 52% of Americans supported allowing same-sex couples to marry, while 44% opposed.
A February 29 – March 3 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found 49% of adults supported allowing same-sex couples to marry, while 40% opposed.
“I don’t like the results, so I’m going to assume and make up a reason that allows me to discredit the results — regardless of reality.”
I live down east, any most folks I know are in support. I think combining this initiative with a presidential election will get more people out to vote, which I think is why the initiative failed three years ago.
I also live in DE Maine, and know ‘almost’ nobody who supports SSM. Most don’t argue about it, it’s simply a black and white issue, and one that we will see the results from in November. You can tell us as often as you like that religion has no place in this vote- and we will tell you that it does. We are from Maine ( unlike so many) , we love Maine, and whether you like it or not, our opinions count. Our votes will also count.
Well, ditto on being from Maine, and on my vote counting. As for the rest…good luck with your life and your fairy-tale beliefs.
You are correct that your vote counts. It is amusing that you believe oppressing others is a good thing. You act as if some one is trying to strip your rights away, while stripping people of theirs. It is a simple black and white issue. If people are living in a way that is against your views, then you have a right to vote on their life and what they do with it. Sounds like you find it acceptable to demand people to live the way you wish them to.
I would love for the majority to condemn your actions and vote on you and people like you. Then you would truly be oppressed. Then they, those that oppressed you, would say, “I am from Maine,because I am here, I have a right to vote on you and your issues.”
How horrific of a person can one be? To think I have right to control others happiness? Do you not see you, how unconstitutional that is? I am sure you don’t.
Just as a question:
deblogger has no right (according to you) “to control others happiness?” but you (on the other hand) have the right to make him unhappy by pushing this issue?
Personally no dog in this hunt, but your post seemed a bit self centered.
Tell us, Mark, do you think it’s really more important to give deblogger the pleasure he derives from hurting LGBT Mainers than to enforce the US Constitution’s guarantee of Equal Protection Under the Law? Just where in the Constitution does it say the few remaining anti-gays should be prevented from being made “unhappy” at the equality of others?
I could not have said that better Carrotcakeman.
The individual wanted to state a view, I replied with my own. It is funny to hear “self centered” on the internet. I would say I have a healthy ego. I loath oppression in all forms and the fact that individuals believe it is perfectly justified to oppress gay people. For the record I am a strictly male to female diet, I am not aroused by men, I do not care who is. It is not my place nor my right to control anyone, no matter how they decide to engage in their own love life. I wish all people would understand we should not have a say in how others love. If that makes me self centered, caring for others, then I guess we need to change the definition of self centered.
“I […] know ‘almost’ nobody who supports SSM.”
Anti-gays tend to avoid nice people. So?
Birds of a feather.
Deblogger will make sure that other people do not have the right that he/she does. How dare people not recognize Christianity as the only form of acceptance towards any way of life and or, THE ONLY, definition of marriage. <— drenched in sarcasm, then deep fried in righteous fire! In other words: "If I am offended, then my rights supersede others"
One should read the historical facts of marriage, how marriage is and or works, beyond just the last forty years. It is not a feeling but a social construct that has changes across time and space.
Wal-mart has changed the USA across time and space
What about this:
I am opposed to all civil marriage and the whole tax and benefit structure which surrounds it. We are not a growing nation, the State no longer demands health tests to issue licenses. There is no longer a stigma around folks living together.
Time to end State sanctioned marriage altogether and let churches marry anyone they choose.
Am I still a bigot?
Good luck at getting all the Americans who already have the special right to legal marriage to give up their rights without a fight.
I would not call you a bigot. Regulations muddle the waters, so maybe it is a possible solution. I would need to know more. What you have said is not the words of a bigot.
I understand your point and no, I would not call you a bigot. I think for those people where religious marriage is important, they should continue to do as they please and have those religious ceremonies. These are harmless and between the parties involved.
With regard to the civil side of marriage, I just do not see how one can un-bake that cake. So much of our society with regard to laws, inheritance, custody, and a myriad of other functions is affected by whether or not a couple is legally married. It would be a monumental task to sort it out. As I have said many times, this is why we have Divorce Court and not Divorce Church, as there are so many legal issues to resolve when the legal marriage contract is dissolved.
Like the system or not, it is what we have. And, discriminating against one minority by not allowing them the right to participate in this legal concept called marriage is discriminatory when there is no basis for the discrimination.
This was a purely political ad printed as news by BDN.
The last paragraph says it all.
“If voters approve the measure, Maine will be the 8th state to legalize same-sex marriage. I can’t help but hope Illinois follows suit soon.
(c)2012 the Chicago Tribune
Distributed by MCT Information Services”
Not an ad (unlike Rev. Emrich’s which was). A commentary from out of state aimed at that states’ audience, but using Maine as an example. Glad they printed it.
oops, sorry for the multi posting, this is my attempt to correct it.
The Waterville Morning Sentinel has a more extensive report on the poll and includes some additional results, one of which is that sixty-eight(!) percent of Mainers favor continued federal subsidies for wind power. I really do wonder how their sample breaks down.
My household is 100% opposed and weren’t asked to participate in this poll !
My household is 100% in favor of this, and weren’t asked to participate in this poll!
But really… Why are you opposed? There are many Maine families raising children who are denied civil marriage because they are same-sex. Allowing civil marriage helps them protect the life the build together, as well as the children they raise together.
I see, your household is opposed to the United States Constitution’s guarantee of Equal Protection Under The Law. What other parts of the US Constitution do you want to violate?
Laughable even if you’re serious.
gays are gestapo!
Makes about as much sense as saying, “People who name their kid ‘chris’ are gay gestapos.”
Homosexuals are chilled tomato-based vegetable soups?
Oh, you said gestapo, not gazpacho.
…that makes even less sense, actually.
Well, the black boots and riding crop brings something to the table…
Be nice, save the sexual fantasizing to the anti-gays.
not really personal theology, more historical fact. but your comment does sound a little one sided, biased, or at least leanning towards something. the whole pot calling the kettle black thing comes to mind.
I always lie when polled… people making money asking loaded questions distorting the truth.
Anti-gays always lie.
If memory serves me correctly, the polls indicated that the last three times it has been voted down.
Your memory is seriously flawed then, because same-sex marriage has only been on the ballot once, in 2009.
Please search your memory and provide the readers here with the dates of the “last three times” it was voted down.
Please keep asking anti-gays questions like this.
We all noticed there was no response.
Will there be another attempt at this, when it fails on election day,,,?
Will the pro gay side be “beside-themselves” if they win, and the opposition wants to put on the next election ballot.
I doubt this will settle anything one way or another. I believe if this passes, our Governor will refuse to do his constitutional mandated obligation wanting to give the the side that opposes SSM enough time to gather more signatures to put it back on the ballot.
The question of SSM will not be settled until it receives its day in court….the SCOTUS.
It is sad when one politician tries to violate the United States Constitution’s guarantee of Equal Protection Under The Law. LePage should think twice before he tries to become the George Wallace standing in the school door of marriage equality.
“The question of SSM will not be settled until it receives its day in court….the SCOTUS.”
The US Supreme Court will receive “Perry vs. Brown” this fall and will have to rule by this time next year. They will have no choice but to establish marriage equality. But, “settled,” I’m afraid the anti-gays have already shown they would happily destroy America and our Constitution if doing so made it possible for them to hurt their fellow Americans who are LGBT.
You mean like when Baldacci passed without a vote…..
If this goes to the Supreme Court, and it will, much like ObamaCare, this will become a national issue, that only the voters of the US will get to decide.
A vote of such magnitude would result in total numbers and not an electoral college vote.
On this issue and ObamaCare, it will eventually come down to a vote of the people of the entire nation, and not left up to crooked politicians…!
You’re gravely mistaken. NO vote may reverse or revoke the United States Constitution and its guarantee of Equal Protection Under the Law. Each and every of the state anti-gay Hate Votes will be revoked because they clearly violate Equal Protection.
we’ll see
We will also see if anti-gays cheat again. The Maine Ethics Commission is watching.
if you say so….
The Maine Ethics Commission says so.
then you have nothing to worry about
You DO have something to worry about. Are you willing to spend the rest of your life in prison for your attempt to throw the election?
Seems to me the vote that established SSM back in 2008 was a vote on a bill just like EVERY other bill that becomes law in Maine. It started with someone introducing a bill, hearings were held, public hearings were held, a vote of the Maine legislature and then signed into law by the Governor.
That is how a bill becomes law in a Representative Republic….Maybe you were absent the day they discussed how bills become law in civics class. School House Rock also did a very good job of describing how a bill becomes law. You should be able to find that on YouTube if your curious.
You might also wish to consult the U.S. Constitution, the SCOTUS is the final word on what is Constitutional and Un-Constitutional. There is NO mechanism for a national vote on anything other than the President/Vice-President.
we’ll see
Will we see YOU do a perp walk, MeForest? Are you willing to spend the rest of your life in prison to throw this next vote?
“we’ll see”?
Did I say something that was not based on the Maine or U.S. Constitution? Is that not how bills become law?
Can you state where in the U.S. Constitution I will find the section that allows for “national referendum(s)”?
Can you show one other time a “national referendum(s)” was held to overturn a decision of the SCOTUS?
Are you suggesting that the people will rise up and overthrough the duly elected government of the United States?
Yes. The idea that we, the people, should vote on everything like some people have stated ignores the fact that we are a REPRESENTATIVE democracy. The way the LD1020 passed in 2009 is the WAY LAWS ARE ALL PASSED.
Apparently, government and civics are no longer taught in high-school.
Last I checked, our elected representatives voted on SSM in 2009. We elect them, they vote. Simple.
i huess we’ll see how it turns out in november
We’ll see if anti-gays commit criminal acts again also. They got caught the last time as well.
mk, what ever
Are you willing to spend the rest of your life in prison to try to hurt your fellow Mainers who are LGBT?
Like when Baldacci passed what without a vote?
People didn’t vote on the Affordable Healthcare Act. Are you saying that there will be a national referendum on SSM? I don’t ever see that happening.
As for the AHA-do you know of any Republican plans for an alternative, or do they just want to rescind the act that covers children and pre-existing conditions and helps everyone get insurance? Because if they don’t, they will continue looking like a bunch of fat cats that don’t give a darn about the little people like all of us here.
Okay, I’ve got to hear this— where in our system of government do the people across the nation have their individual votes tallied up to decide an issue, “and not an electoral college vote”?
“when it fails on election day”
You seem so sure. Does this mean you know that anti-gays are once again poisoning our political process by cheating?
Unlike Baldacci, Pingree, Michaud, Dill, King and so on….
The Maine Ethics Commission caught the anti-gay Hate Cult NOM violating our campaign finance and disclosure laws. NOM is STILL in violation from 2009. I see you want to deflect from that sad fact. Are you uncomfortable talking about how anti-gays poisoned our political process?
I dont have to say anything except dont get too upset on election day
That sounds to me like an admission you are intending to poison our political process yourself and throw the vote. If you’re so proud of the criminal activity you suggest you are committing, why not put your real name here so all can see you hate our country and the democratic process?
IF this does fail, then we will try again. Much like the 34 times the Republicans have tried to repeal the Affordable Healthcare Act. If they can do it, then we will do it.
Abbyisgod, please try to make sense.
Really though, what’s the harm?
More gay mafia propaganda!
~rolls eyes~
We have learned that “polls” on this subject are totally unreliable. People (attempting to look egalitarian) tell pollsters they plan to vote for gay marriage, and then in privacy of voting booth cast a “NO”.
As a single man I am here to tell you that there is a group discriminated against by marriage laws, and it is not gays.
I assume you are alluding to single people being discriminated against?
You can claim such if you want, but don’t claim that homosexuals aren’t discriminated against in regards to civil marriage. We are prohibited in Maine from obtaining a civil marriage license, while male/female couples can.
Dear Con:
We have had this discussion before. I am opposed to ALL civil marriages. There are States where gays can marry. They are also free to move there. There is no place in the USA where I can move to obtain the tax breaks and benefits afforded to married gays and straights.
Telling people they should move away in order to overcome discrimination is always a failed tactic. Sure didn’t work for the segregated south.
I did not say they “should” move away from discrimination, only that they are free to do so. Funny how the “downtrodden” need to remain so to preserve their identity.
Seems to me that the discrimination you ‘suffer’ as a single man via marriage laws is the same as gay and lesbian singles. Please explain how it is different or greater….
Yes. I just can’t see them as the same thing. One group wants to be able to get married and have those rights. Another group doesn’t want to get married yet have those same rights, even though, if straight, can still marry.
At least the non-gays get the choice.
Exactly.
Not actually. There are eight (I think) States where gays CAN enjoy the benefits of a tax subsidized civil marriage. There are NO States where singles can benefit from their status.
But suppose “marriage” doesn’t make me happy? This could be a “non-choice” situation also. Suppose the single person is single because he/she was “born” anti social?
Your argument is totally self serving, and you are exposed as being “intolerant” of people who have a different orientation.
You think I should pay for your children their health care and their education? The mortgage on your picket-fenced family home? Your non-working partner’s Medicare and Social Security?
That sure doesn’t sound like “marriage equity” to me.
Where did anyone say we were asking for guarantees on happiness? We’re asking for equal treatment under the law.
Your arguments aren’t against same-sex marriage, they are against marriage in general. Honestly I don’t have a beef with your point of view, but you’re beginning to make straw men to attack, rather than argue the real points being made.
What is really “unreliable” are the anti-gays. The Maine Ethics Commission caught anti-gays RED-HANDED committing criminal acts in violation of Maine campaign finance and disclosure laws in order to poison our political process and THROW the 2009 anti-gay Hate Vote. Anti-gays have been caught in other states committing these same criminal acts.
And get ready for more violations from N.O.M., the New Jersey-based organization that donated millions of dollars to the “Yes on One” campaign in 2009 (the side headed by Mr. Bob Emrichthat opposed same sex marriage).
Right! They are STILL in violation of Maine laws from their misdeeds in 2009!
I guess anti-gays themselves realize the only way they could ever win ANY anti-gay Hate Votes was to commit these criminal acts and throw votes.
How about we show a pie chart of the 63% of the states that have constitutional amendments banning gay marriage (that would be 31 states that have these amendments). Or, how about the Bangor Gayly news prints a pie chart that 100% of the states have never voted by the people for gay marriage. Keep up the propaganda BDN. Does Donald $u$$man now own part of the BDN. You knowDonald, the hedgefund billionaire married to Chellie Pingree, the Donald who is a huge donor to Equality Maine and jets Barney Frank all over the place. This poll is done by the liberal Critical Insights.
Let’s make sure that pie chart shows the percentage of those anti-gay Hate Votes that were passed by anti-gays committing criminal acts that THREW those votes, as the Maine Ethics Commission proved the Maine 2009 anti-gay Hate Vote was poisoned by anti-gay cheating.
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.
In the most notorious anti-gay Hate Vote of all, the 2008 California H8te Vote that actually took away the established right LGBT Californians had to legal marriage, we saw that anti-gays cheated to throw the vote. The federal judge who revoked the H8te Vote had in his possession a letter written by Catholic bishops to Mormon leaders in which they both agreed to violate California campaign finance laws to throw the H8te Vote by making secret, illegal cash and in-kind contributions to the H8te Vote. The letter serves as proof positive they knew they were breaking the law; the letter itself is an act of criminal collusion. We know the Mormons made the Hate Videos shown on TV, but they refused to report these in-kind contributions as required by law. We know Mormons operated secret, illegal call centers in Idaho and Utah from which they made deceptive calls, because a million Californians reported these deceptive calls where anti-gays claimed a “yes” vote would support marriage equality. We know Mormons were told by their leaders to make large, secret contributions to the H8te Vote under pain of excommunication, and we know Mormons sent their church members from out of state. Mormon leaders were required by California law to report these contributions, but they refused.
Those damn gays wanting to be treated equally. It’s like , who do they thing they are?!
So which poll would you believe?
I am hopeful that Maine can be the first state to extend civil marriage to same-sex couples via popular vote.
Historically, minorities are very rarely granted equality via a vote by the majority. This is why we live in a Constitutional Republic, where the rule of law and the US Constitution can protect the rights of us all, no matter our popularity at the time.
Well, Chicago says SSM is good for my state…it must be true.
Equality is good for all 50 US States. I hope you don’t OPPOSE equality!
Funny today I got a 90% No vote, where do they get these numbers from?
Who did you poll, the anti-gay Hate Cult NOM that the Maine Ethics Commission caught red-handed poisoning our political process in 2009?
Same place the poll takers did, why?
Anti-gays always lie.
Your a bigot and I never said I’m anti-gay, but I have always said I’m anti-marriage.
Anti-marriage for who?
Everyone.
You hate EVERYONE? That would make you anti-gay, all right.
Thank you for proving a point.By inventing things not said.
I got your first message thats not appearing here, care to try to prove that in court?
You must work at BDN and your sending nasty notes out that aren’t published. Don’t worry I have screen shots.
watch you tube later, and see all your post that didn’t show up here, mr. BDN employee. Do they know you hijack email addresses?
No one polled anyone I know. I don’t believe it. Just Liberal biased if you ask me. Maine has refused gay marriage before. I pray people would wake up to the tactics of these people who are trying to make a perverse lifestyle that they have chosen the same right as someone black, red or disabled.
It is unnatural. God did not make anyone a homosexual. They are confused about sexuality. It’s Immoral and we don’t need a law to protect it. They WERE NOT born that way. It is as much a choice as someone robbing a store. The feelings they have for the opposite sex does not come from God it comes from Satan. I don’t have those inclinations but even if I did I would realize it is a temptation to RESIST and Not a right to make a law.
Anti-gays tend to avoid nice people. Maybe you should get out more and meet all the nice Mainers who support their family members, friends, neighbors and coworkers who are LGBT and who do not fear and hate us.
“They WERE NOT born that way.”
That’s a LIE. 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
There is nothing “perverse” about the life I have built with my partner over the decades. We live pretty mundane lives, give to charity, volunteer in our community, and help out our neighbors (and they help us out).
I live in Downeast Maine, and have never had anyone make me feel unwelcome. The only people I really see voicing opposition to our ability to wed are people on these message forums and in the news.
And yes, this is my “tactic”— engage people in conversation, show them who we are, and explain clearly why civil marriage is so important for us. There are over 1,100 benefits and privileges extended by our government that are contingent on marital status! We absolutely need civil marriage for ALL Maine families to be able to protect the lives the build together, and the children they raise together.
As for your argument that this is a choice— we allow men and women of different religious faiths to marry, even if we don’t agree with their choice of religion… and yes, even if some churches, mosques, or synagogues would refuse to host the ceremony.
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.
Bucking a lot of factual information, aren’t you? Is that the way you attack anything you don’t agree with (don’t confuse me with facts).
“I pray people would wake up to the tactics of these people who are trying to […]”
The Maine Ethics Commission caught anti-gays RED-HANDED committing IMMORAL, criminal acts they committed to poison our political process. Your prayers have been answered, but not in the evil way you intended.
Please don’t try to pretend it’s “God” who causes you to hate and fear your fellow Mainers and tell lies like you did below, your “inspiration” came from the Satan you falsely try to associate with LGBT Americans. Shame on you for helping Satan violate our Constitution.
You know we live in such strange days. You see the oddest queerest things. I have on more than one occasion seen a girl leading a boy around town with a collar and leash. Real natural behavior, right? It’s getting so absurd that the things we see in society do not shock us and we are not supposed to look cross eyed at anyone’s behavior lest we offend someone’s rights. I would not be shocked in today’s world to see a man leading a horse down the street by a leash and claiming it is his soul mate and that he is married to her. After all it would not be any more unnatural than a woman hand in hand with a woman or a man hand in hand with a man. They are both extremely perverse. God and LGBT do not go together. And when Jesus comes all unrepentant LBGT will be separated from him forever. Times running out. The evil perverse society we live in is a sure sign of it. You need repentance not the right to be gay.
This is really offensive. Animals cannot consent to such relations, and same sex relationships victimize no one any more than heterosexual relationships, good and bad, lifelong and fleeting.
I have been in a monogamous, supportive relationship for decades, and I do want to protect us better with civil marriage. And our government has no legitimate reason to deny us access to the civil marriage license. This is what courts and congresses across our nation are determining, including our own state legislature in 2009.
If you cannot argue against gay marriage without bringing up bestiality, you really haven’t made an argument against gay marriage.
It is YOU who expressed an interest in sado-masochism here. It is YOU who expressed an interest in “marrying a horse.” We can all see just WHO has the sexual problems and tries to bring them to the attention of all readers here. So, just who IS IT that is “perverse”?
It is YOU who should repent for posting your own sexual obsessions and fantasies in this family newspaper. It is YOU who should be ashamed for trying to force your own nasty and hurtful “beliefs” onto other Americans in violation of the Constitution.
Late to the party but hopefully not too late (after months of hinting, BDN finally blocked particpation by those of us with “obsolete” browsers even though mine is less than 5 months old).
Looks like a good poll and article, regardless of the unwarranted criticism by the rabid right. Hope it translates into a successful vote for SSM this Nov.
Thank you for your support. You are protecting your OWN freedom and equality as well. If the anti-gays ever got to do what they wanted to LGBT Americans, who would they attack next?
Sorry comment was for Trashcan