AUGUSTA, Maine — Question 1 on the Nov. 6 ballot will read: “Do you want to allow the State of Maine to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples?” Secretary of State Charlie Summers announced late Thursday afternoon.
That is similar language to the draft version of the question issued June 14. The draft question said, “Do you want to allow same-sex couples to marry?”
Proponents and opponents of same-sex marriage said Thursday they had no objections to the final wording of the question.
“We’re pleased the secretary of state took into account our concerns,” Matt McTighe, campaign manager for Mainers United for Marriage, a coalition of groups that support same-sex marriage, said Thursday in a telephone interview. “This wording more accurately reflects the contents of the petition question.”
“The new question makes it clear that the proposed law is about civil marriage and that no church or religious institution can be sued for refusing to recognize or perform a marriage that goes against its belief,” he said in a press release.
Proponents of same-sex marriage who submitted enough signatures earlier this year to put the issue on the ballot urged Summers to have the question say: “Do you favor a law allowing marriage licenses for same-sex couples, and that protects religious freedom by ensuring that no religion or clergy be required to perform such a marriage in violation of their religious beliefs?”
Same-sex marriage opponents said last month that the “religious exemption” isn’t legally necessary because it is covered by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Supporters have conceded that is true.
McTighe said Thursday the campaign would continue to talk about the religious exemption to make sure voters understand the law would not force clergy to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies.
Opponents of same-sex marriage had urged the secretary of state to include language that said the intent of the proposal was “to redefine marriage.”
“That isn’t a very substantial change,” Bob Emrich, spokesman for Protect Marriage Maine, said Thursday of the final wording. “I still would have preferred a statement about redefining marriage, but I have no problem with that language. People will know what they are voting on.”
Summers said in a press release issued at 5 p.m. Thursday that the final wording was decided “with input from senior staff [who had] taken into account all the comments that were received.”
After the draft question was released last month, the public had 30 days to comment on its language. Summers then had 10 days to announce the final wording.
“The Secretary of State is charged with drafting the question to be posed to the voters on the ballot,” Summers said in the press release. “Maine law directs the Secretary of State to draft the question concisely and intelligibly.”
State law requires that referendum questions appear second on the ballot after people’s veto questions. The same-sex marriage question will be the only citizen-initiated question on the ballot in November along with four bond issues, according to information on the secretary of state’s website.
Summers is scheduled to determine the order the bond issues will appear on the ballot through a public drawing at 1 p.m. Friday in his office in Augusta.
Same-sex marriage proponents were required to gather at least 57,277 valid signatures, or 10 percent of the total number of people who cast ballots for governor in the last gubernatorial election.
Advocates turned in petitions from 453 towns and cities on Jan. 26. Of the 96,137 signatures submitted, 10,921 were determined to be invalid, Summers said in a press release. Petitioners had until Jan. 30 to submit the signatures, according to provisions of the Maine Constitution. The secretary of state’s office had 30 days from Jan. 26 to validate the signatures and certify the petitions.
In New England, same-sex marriage is allowed in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut and Vermont, and civil unions for same-sex couples are allowed in Rhode Island. Other states that permit same-sex marriage are New York, Washington and Iowa, along with Washington, D.C. The Maryland legislature voted earlier this year to allow same-sex marriage.
In February, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie vetoed a bill to allow same-sex marriage in that state.
In the states where same-sex marriage is allowed, the laws all came through either court orders or legislative votes, not through a statewide popular vote.
A constitutional ban on gay marriage passed in North Carolina on May 8. Voters in Minnesota will consider a constitutional ban in that state on Nov. 6.
I think it’s an improvement, because it clearly identifies the civil marriage license, which is what this is all about. Churches are free to accept or deny anyone for a marriage ceremony, for any reason— they do it all the time.
Civil marriage conveys over 1,100 benefits and privileges at the federal level alone. There is no justifiable reason to discriminate against same-sex couples for access to civil marriage. That’s what courts across this country have found time and time again, and it is my hope that most Mainers will agree, and vote to extend marriage equality to ALL Maine families this November!
32 states have already voted to reject same sex marriages. Let’s make it 33.
How does it impact you and why do you care?
Does it impact you, wolfndeer?
Does it impact you, freddie?
Does it impact you, jd2008jd?
I will be the first to answer it.
Does this impact me? Not one iota. I have been married 25+ years.
Does it impact you Res?
So does it impact you, FarmindaleRes?
I answer the question when it was put to me Res, fair is fair.
Bigotry affects everyone.
Yes it does.
Liberal definition of bigotry, when people have an opinion that is opposed to mine. Using the term bigotry in the context of a moral disagreement is akin to the behavior you acuse the other of. It proves nothing and only weakins your stance, it’s the old “I know you are but what am I” answer
It’s not bigorty because we disagree, it’s bigorty because you are denying american citizens their rights.
big·ot noun ˈbi-gət
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
It affects every married person by devaluing the institution of marriage.
But Britney Spears’ drunken weekend marriage is totally legit and in no way devalues the institution.
And a devorce rate of over 50% doesn’t?
Excellent point
Perhaps you can explain to me how SSM somehow changes–let alone cheapens–my marriage? I have yet to hear how. And I was married by a JP, so it can’t be a religious issue.
Marriage will now include sodomy between two men, or between two men, one of whom believes he is the wife, and one of whom believes he is the husband.
Not only will the institution of marriage be devalued, it will essentially be destroyed. Your subjective opinion of your own marriage will not matter. How society views marriage as a whole is the decisive point. The effect will be like allowing 50% of accountants to be embezzlers.Would that affect the accounting profession, do you think?
I can assure you that lots of marriages already include sodomy, so I don’t see how that is relevent. Embezzlement is a felony and hurts other people…how is this similar to SSM?
This one of the weaker arguments, for injustice, disguised as justice. Your own opinion has no fact but mere feelings that are appear to be pretty subjective. I wonder how ill effected you are, sonofbangor, by possible subjective experiences. If your subjective experience causes you to be offended then your rights supersede others individual rights? I would call that inane and petty, something akin to a small child who does not want to brush their teeth and come up with every reason they do not need to brush their teeth.
The arguments against equality, are similar, sometimes amusing and always petty. The arguments have little to do with Jesus and very little do with faith. People will feel specifically about something and then look for meaning in ways to justify that feeling and encroach on what should be everyone’s liberty and freedom. I did have a good laugh reading your comment. Please keep them coming, nothing shows the true self like an argument or an opinion. :)
Edit: This was intended as a reply to sonofbangor. my bad.
Once again, you have ignored the question under discussion.
The general picture which emerges from all the comments here is that your movement cannot survive without lies and deception.
Two men who receive a license from the state are not “marrying;” they are committing sodomy, and a perverse and wicked government is calling it “marriage.”
Your daddy needs to take you aside and explain what sodomy is. I doubt it’s happening at the ceremony.
Yeah, that’d be rather inappropriate!
They are probably “committing” sodomy whether or not they’re married. So what?
Do you take issue with straight married couples who “commit” sodomy?
Just come out of the closet, you will feel better.
Financial issues will do far more damage.
Sodomy occurs within current marriages between a man and a woman. Anytime there is oral or anal sex, that is sodomy. It happens ALL THE TIME between straight people-not all, but a lot of them.
As for the wife comment, either you are perpetuating gender stereotypes by insinuating that certain duties in a marriage and household must be performed by a woman or you are under the false assumption that one member of a same-sex couple longs to be someone of the opposite gender. Let me make it clear that in my relationship, and those of many other gay men I know, both parties enjoy being men as well as like men. Neither one of us wants to be a woman. When we are married, we will both be each other’s husband.
If you feel your relationship to your wife is cheapened by my marriage to the man I love, you need to look closer at your relationship and pay less attention to mine.
Well said!
IMO he’s trying to be funny wit the “wife” comment or he’s just trying to get people riled up.
Jack
I’m sure it would blow his mind to find out that a lot of straight men like to receive anal sex. Some enjoy it with a female and some enjoy it solo but he most likely thinks if a man enjoys receiving anal sex that makes him gay even though another male is not present.
Society is a sum of individuals. Many of us married individuals disagree that our marriages will be devalued. The more individuals who believe as we do the more society will believe so.
Many opposite-sex married couples practice one form of sodomy (by definition) or another – why do continue that argument – you want to nullify all those marriages?
Jack
We straight people have done more than our fair share to devalue marriage. You want to strengthen marriage? Raise the minimum age, establish a minimum financial status, and do away with no-fault divorce.
It does not devalue marriage. It further glorifies marriage by acknowledging the commitment of two people who are in love.
I would think that the only people who can cheapen a marriage are the people within that marriage. If you say other people cheapen it, then that’s really a reflection on how you value your relationship, not whether I marry the man I love.
Not for my wife or I. If allowing same-sex couples a civil marriage license devalues the institution for you or others – then you don’t put much value in it to begin with IMO.
Jack
I have been married over thirty years, and am not threatend or “devalued” by this at all. I have never even though of marraige in such a material way. Is that why there are so many divorces, the “stock” price fell too low? If anything, divorce is a much greater “devaluation” factor then this, and causes society much greater issues.
I think he is seeing it as “the cool thing.” And, like Facebook, the cool think loses popularity when just anyone can do it. Although, I think it is a very very very small number of people who view marriage in that way. Most people I know think it’s a great idea to have more committed couples get married and feel as you do, that their marriage will not be “devalued” by the gays. Again, if anything is devaluing a marriage, it is something from within.
does it impact you, jd2008jd
Asked and answered several times.
What about you demon….Does SSM impact you or your marriage?
So-called “gay marriage” will impact all of society. It’s a a fantasy being pursued by the gay community thinking it will enhance their lives. Truth be told no amount of commitment on their part will ever produced the oneness and satisfaction married heterosexual couples can achieve. Also, it will rob marriage of it’s unique distinction thus making it more difficult to persuade cohabiting couples from making the type of commitment to each other marriage requires.
You say it will impact all of society, yet provide no evidence of that impact. Ah yes, a gay couple who is together for 30 years will not be able to match Britany Spears’ drunken Vegas weekend wedding in terms of love, commitment, and respect.
Opinion not fact.
So your experience in a same sex marriage makes you qualified to make that statement?
No, I’m well read up and informed on the subject matter. I merely pass on the knowledge for the benefit of others.
I think you have confused knowledge with opinion.
Besides working to prevent me from marrying my boyfriend, what else are you doing to protect traditional marriage and keep it special?
Then I would say you’ve made a poor choice of reading materials. Broaden your mind.
I would suggest you get out, meet and talk to same-sex couples and give the reading material a rest. Listen to them and you will find they have the same degree of love, respect and commitment to their significant others as you do.
Jack
Not so long ago until their break up I met with a homosexual couple weekly over a period of several months. Although I no longer see these individuals as a couple, I remain on friendly terms with each.
I also know a young woman who had two failed marriages with men. The young woman was the type that fell for abusive men, nor real men. She had no sexual affinity towards woman until she befriended a butch lesbian who was more than willing to give her all the attention she craved. Between the time she was divorced until the time she began a homosexual relationship she used to smile a lot as she served customers at a fast-food counter. Now she rarely cracks a smile. I’ve known her from the cradle, so I can tell she is one unhappy individual.
I know of 4 cases where young men in my community who left home as adolescents after being drawn to the homosexual community. Each ended in San Francisco where they contracted the HIV virus. Each came home to die. I’ve had the opportunity to speak to the parents of two of these men. They told me that had they foreseen what would have happened to their sons they would have counseled them to get help instead of being permissive parents.
I know all the parents of these 4 young men who died. Sad to say, but I think their sad chapters were completely unnecessary and could likely have been avoided.
There are more than a handful of others whom I know and speak to now and then. Some of them are sexually active gays and while the others have rejected and regret all their past homosexual encounters, calling them mistakes.
Thank you for telling us about your experiences. It is unfortunate that all the gay people you know have experienced something traumatic in their lives.
I know many gay people who are doing just fine. They are happy and healthy. Successful, either single or with partners and children. Some of them are happier now than they were when they were trying to be straight and living with opposite-sex spouses.
Just as there are sad and happy straight people, there are sad and happy gay people. Unfortunately, for many gay people, society is a lot harder on them then they are on straight people. A good example is the commenter on this very forum that wants gay to move to an island. That’s not cool.
And how many gay couples do you know really well?
Love is love. Do you really believe that you love your husband or wife or that I love my fiance who I’m marrying in two weeks, more than someone in the same position in a same sex relationship? You are greatly undervaluing the love and feelings that grow during any relationship, no matter who it is between.
I also really fail to see how this will “rob marriage of it’s unique distinction thus making it more difficult to persuade cohabiting couples for making the type of commitment to each other [that] marriage requires. Why are you trying to persuade people, even those in long term monogamous heterosexual relationships, from living a lifestyle that works for them and makes them happy. You may think that you know what will make them happy, but people are capable and should be allowed to love who they want and make any commitment (or lack of commitment) that works for them and their relationship.
The problem is “gay marriage” will not make gay couples any happier and more fulfilled. Nature has not provided the necessary complementary elements to make it thus. It’s only common sense, but if you want a more detailed explanation, read and study the discussion in the following link:
http://www.catholic.com/documents/gay-marriage
Really? Because being able to marry my boyfriend would actually make me much happier.
That’s nice that you are concerned about my happiness and fulfillment, but I think that I am more qualified to address that than you are.
I like how whawell keeps trying to use catholic websites as “evidence” of his position.
The website I offered gives a strong argument against gay marriage both from the religious and rational perspectives. The argument, not the person or organization behind it, is what is important.
I stopped taking it seriously after it said ”
While the Church does recognize homosexuality as disordered”. There has been plenty of research to prove otherwise. If they can’t get that simple premise correct, I have no reason to trust the rest of the article.
I disagree. Why are you so against love in all its forms? Don’t most preachers talk about tolerance and acceptance? What about judgement? why do you feel the need to judge those who have unconditional love towards their partner? What about the separation of church and state? are we really going to allow the bible to tell us who the state can marry? do you believe abusive marriages are more fulfilling than homosexual marriages? and why do you care so much about what happens in someones bedroom? is that really any of your business? Are you going to tell people who are into masochism that they cannot marry? what about those ‘swinger’ couples? where should we draw the line?
My argument has nothing to do with “separation of church and state”. It has nothing to do with people’s freedom to choose a mate, since they are already free to do so. Also, it has nothing to do with masochism or swinging, what goes on in the bedroom, or abusive marriages. None of these behaviors will be prevented by state endorsement of same-sex relationships or so-called “gay marriage”. Finally, tolerance does not mean one has to agree with the claimed worthiness of certain behaviors or relationships. If I don’t agree with homosexuality why should I endorse it with my vote?
I can understand that, but would you vote against it?
The answer is simple. I don’t want to encourage behavior I believe to be harmful by casting my approval of it in any way. Sorry, Joe, but nothing personal is intended here.
But would you vote against it? I can understand you not voting for it, but would you actively vote against it? Or would you abstain from voting on the issue?
Gotta love that coming from those “small government conservatives” using the law to try and dictate how others live. Talk about hypocrisy.
Nothing personal? Tell yourself that all you want, but it is. You don’t like gay people and that’s it. Pathetic.
edit: this isn’t about your simply disagreeing with someone else. You disagree and then you use the law to hinder them. Do you see me doing that? No, I simply think you have a hateful outlook against your neighbors you don’t even know. Yet I’m not trying to make laws that keep you down. I’m better than that.
You ridicule me for not wanting to endorse homosexuality. Have I ridiculed or needled you? Not really! Now who is trying to dictate how others should live? The one who ridicules or the one who is being ridiculed to submission? I’m sorry you take offense at me. I have nothing personal against you even though I disagree with your stand on homosexuality. It would not surprise me to learn you have a lot of relatives and concerned people in your life who feel as I do. I hope for your and their sake you don’t treat them as you just treated me. Peace.
I don’t agree with religious bigots like yourself, but you don’t see me using the law against them. That’s the difference.
How can you justifiably calling me a “religious bigot” when I adhere to religion? It seems to me you are the one who has been criticizing religious adherents, not me. Besides, what have I done to deserve your wrath? After all, am I not an agreeable person even while disagreeing with you?
Oh good source. Glad you chose one that is unbiased.
Yes, I believe so. It presents arguments both from the religious and the rational perspectives, each equally persuasive by itself. If one is not persuaded by religiously-based reasons, then one can always consider the other reasons and come to the same conclusions.
Catholicism is not the national religion and the Vatican is not the nation’s capital. It is your belief system and you are free to follow it – and everyone else has the freedom not to.
Personally I think you take the “one flesh” part too literally in more than one way.
Jack
Face the truth, you are a homophobe and you think gay people are icky. Just come out and admit it.
I think that may be close to the truth. I know a VERY happy married gay couple in California. While I don’t think they expected marriage to solve every single issue (just as straight people don’t expect that) they are extremely glad they were able to marry during that short summer in 2008.
You won’t listen to gay people when they tell you how important it is and then you think you get to speak for them? What common sense is that you obviously have a personal bias against gay people and that’s all this is. Quit being disgusting. Let your neighbors live how they want to live and quit trying to force them to be something else.
So you are saying that it will take away your special rights……?
Newflash-fewer people are marrying ANYWAY, whether or not I am allowed to marry the man I love.
Tell that to the couple that live down the street from me – they’ve been together since 1956. How do you have the audacity to say they are unable to have the oneness and satisfaction that you and your spouse have or my wife and I have because they both female. Do you base it on personal experience or is it just because you say so .
If marriage in the state of Maine today has a unique distinction – then why is it so difficult to persuade co-habiting couples here and now? You really think continuing to deny same-sex couples civil marriage will persuade them? “Hey look we saved all the ‘specialness’ for you – jump in.”
Jack
So why haven’t the other countries that have allowed gay marriage for many years not fallen?
Who’s predicting the country will fall apart if “gay marriage” succeeds? That’s a Trojan horse.
You are.
You wrote: So-called “gay marriage” will impact all of society.
People here have said that society will fall apart. But you have deflected the question. How has SSM been damaging to the government, society, and people of those states and countries where it is legal? What horrors do the people of Maine have to look forward to when this passes?
If this is such a terrible thing, then the SSM that surrounds the state of Maine must really be doing a number on Mainers. All of Canada allows it as does New Hampshire. Cross any border, and there are gays marrying. How is this affecting the people of Maine? Or is does society-killing scourge not affect anyone in the state of Maine?
If not, how about when married people cross the border? Is their marriage automatically less than and then reverts to normal status when they return to Maine? It sounds terribly complicated!
The final wording on Question 1 on your Nov. 6 ballot should read: Yes.
õ/
Why? Why should we stand in the way of Maine families who need the important protections of civil marriage?
what are the protections you are seeking?
How about these two not
1) The right to make end of life decisions when your partner cannot make it for themselves.
2) The right to hospital and nursing home visitation where your partner is a patient and cannot verbalize that they wish to see you.
These are two rights that a married heterosexual couple have and an unmarried same sex couple doesn’t. And please don’t respond with “oh but all they need is POA (or some other piece of paper that a married couple doesn’t need)” because hospitals and nursing homes often ignore them or the next of kin can says “no, I don’t want them to make those decisions” or ” I don’t want them visiting my dad (brother, sister, etc….).
You can get both of those with a civil union. Please be truthful, tell him what you really want – to usurp the word ‘Marriage”.
1. Christians don’t own the term marriage. If a church wants to define marriage as man and woman, they can. They don’t get to force the government to keep their definition.
2. Forcing same sex couples into civil unions that are equal to marriage, except in name, is a “separate but equal’ institution. This is unconstitutional.
3. Civil unions are NOT the same as marriage. Same sex couples, even in states that allow for same sex marriage, are denied federal benefits.
103 days and this will all be over!
I am so glad that you are so optimistic about same sex marriage being legal nationwide within 103 days.
Not in Maine Abby…..not in Maine.
You’re tripping on semantics. A civil marriage, a civil union, whatever. What SSM advocates want are legal assurances. Religious entities are allowed by the law to not recognize or participate in them if that is what is desired.
Healthcare institutions and providers are obligated by law to follow a Legal and Durable Power of Attorney Document for medical/healthcare decision making purposes….and a Durable Power of Attorney for financial purposes is legally binding as well: Any institution that chooses to “ignore them” is acting illegally and not within the law: Do you have specific examples where “hospitals and nursing homes often ignore them”?
There have been instances where, in a same sex couple, the family of the one partner in the hospital prevented the other partner from making end of life decisions and from even visiting because the couple could not be legally married.
This must have been horrible and should not have happened that way; It certainly does pose issues when family are not all on the same page so to speak;
This is just one particular example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR9gyloyOjM
Well, my question is, why should we have to pay for all these legal documents when I can just marry some random dame, whom I may not even love, and have all that taken care of with just that one civil document that no one can question?
I have no experience with the costs for some of these legal papers but do know that hospitals and other healthcare facilities do provide the documents without cost; The wishes and signatures just need to be witnessed and then are supposedly legally binding; This is how two of the one’s I am involved with happened at no cost, they were done in the hospital; In one of my cases the family member did actually go to a lawyer for several matters and named me as POA on documents done there and I would definately presume that there was a charge; My wife and I did ours at the lawyer’s office and do know I paid for that, but we did a Durable POA for financial and other legal matters at the same time; Agreed thought, if it comes with the marriage then so be it;
Note: Durable POA expires when that person passes away. Next of kin (legal spouse, child, parent, siblings – in order down the line) are legally accepted to make final arrangements etc. – unmarried partners are not.
Jack
“Do you have specific examples where “hospitals and nursing homes often ignore them”? ”
I sure do…personal experience times two. Two relatives of mine where I was the POA, Medical Durable POA and Healthcare Proxy named in the documents were admitted to a Bangor nursing home and copies of all documents were presented and placed in the patient record.
When it came time to make end of life decisions for terminally ill patients the wishes expressed in the documents were ignored by the nursing home staff, the head nurse, medical director and nursing home administrator. Maine DHHS was contacted and they told the nursing home to follow the patients wishes as outlined in the documents found in the patients records. The nursing home staff didn’t like that answer and called their corporate legal team and they told them to ignore the states position and to call someone else in DHHS and get a different answer.
These conversations were related to me at patient care conferences surrounding end of life decisions and in front of other witnesses. Staff members took one of two positions…they either told me to my face to continue my fight or they shunned be completely.
At one patient care meeting the medical director (a very well known and respected physician in the Bangor community) told me that if I interfered in any way with what was “best for the patient” he would have me charged with elder abuse. He also said that the patient could not have known what they were signing because if they had they never would have signed it. This comment was made despite the fact that all documents were notarized and witnessed by the family attorney. The the medical director said that they were signed out of state and they could be followed in this state. Well I live in Maine, my relatives lived in another state and when they became ill they were moved to Maine so I could follow their care and provide for them (guess I failed them in both cases).
The long and the short of it was the nursing home “knew what was best and what the patients really wanted”. What they signed and had notarized was meaningless to the nursing home.
In the long run I cannot help but think that money was a major factor for the nursing home to prolong the lives of both of my relatives. See, they were private pay patients and were collecting $10,000.00/month for the “care” they were receiving.
Hope that my personal experience is enough to show you that they can and are ignored in some cases.
Thanks for the info; I am a medical POA for three people (well one passed a few years back) and that is the only one that medical decisions could not be made by the individual himself and so my input was openly taken in regards to end-of-life care (in a local hospital setting); The other two cases where I am POA are still living well and able to make medical decisions thus far thankfully. I certainly would not ask for names or places involved but will take your experience as advise for future times; Thanks.
I wish you the best of luck in maneuvering the medical-legal jungle of healthcare. It is not an experience I enjoyed at all and hope never to have to repeat. I also want to apologize if I went off on you in any way shape or form. I am still pretty bitter over the whole experience.
I took no offense in any way;
jd, I’m very sorry to whoever experienced that. I work in a nursing home and we have had same sex couples and would NEVER have done such a thing. Appalling. My wife, oui, I call her my wife, was operated on earlier this year, not once did we have to show any paper work, they treated us as if we were married. We were very lucky.
I also am sorry that anyone would be put thru something as jd was…..in 16 years of nursing I have been involved in many cases where a medically appointed POA has made decisions when the patient was unable….some were spouses, family, significant-others and friends…..never once have I seen a document not honored…..it has a few times caused problems with kids or other family who thought their wishes should be entertained over the specified POA, but thank-fully the wishes of the patients seem to be followed as they should be…..
There are over 1,100 benefits and privileges extended by our government, contingent on marital status. These include everything from social security benefits to surviving spouses, veterans benefits including pensions and access to military housing, taxation distinctions, employment, immigration and naturalization, intellectual property and bankruptcy law, financial disclosure and conflicts of interest, eligibility for loans and grants (and the amount those loans and grants might be), and protections in issues of crime and family violence.
You can read more on this General Accounting Office document from 1997, and their update in 2004:
http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf
Tell them to move to a state that allows it. No means no and voters have already said no once in Maine. So lets go for the second time and then the third time and on and on. My vote is NO its not right.
zzzzzzzz
Careful there bigbear. Your not allowed to have an opinion that differs from the gay population. They don’t want to be special but if you say anything against them you are discriminating against them but they don’t want any special labeling or rights. Kinda scary ain’t it. I love my son but i don’t need to marry him to prove that. Might be the next issue though.
Actually the ones that are demanding special rights are those against this measure. They believe that they have the “special right” to force their beliefs on other Mainers and that all Mainers must live by the “special” belief system. They want the special right to discriminate, demean and to exclude others from fully enjoying all that this society has to offer.
To compare incest with this issue is twisted.
I knew the discrimination card would be played. The line about my son was just for shock value because it will be the next opening for perverted minds. Also marrying ones dog or pet monkey. You gays are very,very sick people. Especially those that want to flaunt their lifestyles as normal. God and I must judge you.
Exactly who are you to judge anyone? Do you think you are God?
God knows not many people actually talk with Him so He had instructions about this written down in His book. Look it up , same sex people lying with each other is still an abomonation !
But the Bible is for matters of the church. In this country we have the right to live by our own belief system. Not one dictated by a fraction of one religion. We have the right to be free from religious imposition. My husband and many others laid down their lives to preserve our freedoms. To try to take away the rights of one group of people and to force them to live by another’s belief system is a slap in the face to our veterans and those who have fallen.
zzzzzzz
And yet I do not see religious conservaties working themselves into a tizzy over women teachers, or women employers. ” I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[a] she must be quiet” – 1 Timothy 2:12
So is sinning, everyone sins, That is why Jesus died. Gays sin no more then you or I.
You know that old saying – don’t assume it make an *ss out of u and me? There are many straight folks who support same-sex marriage.
Jack
I’m one of the proud supporters of SSM!
billy the “sick people” are those that think they a) speak for God and b) judge others when God specifically said not to judge others.
Do you often pick and choose those parts of the Bible to follow and not follow?
a sick person was Bob Carlson. I guess he chose parts of the Bible to follow as well, and some fools believed him.
And you saw right through him too didn’t you not. You knew that he was a) a charlatan and b) a pedophile too didn’t you.
Of course if you knew both and didn’t do anything then you are guilty too. Guilty for allowing him to fool others and guilty for allowing him to harm a child.
And if you didn’t know, then he fooled you too.
So, which is it not? Did you know and do NOTHING or were you FOOLED like so many others?
ENOLA GAY
The B-29 Superfotress named for Enola Gay Tibbets, piloted by Colonel Paul Tibbets that dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan…yeah your post makes so much sense.
So a yes vote means one is guilty for enabling.
No, I for one was not fooled by Bob Carlson.
I knew that any religious man or woman who advocated abortion and sodomistic marriage was a fraud, and was speaking with the voice of Satan.
So no, many of us were not fooled, just as we are not fooled by “gay” marriage.
So you weren’t “fooled” by Bob Carlson but did nothing to stop him. So you enabled him by doing nothing.
I was not deceived as to his character.
I had no idea of his other activities, just as the public at large has no idea how many of the homosexual advocates of same sex marriage are pedophiles.
So knowing his wasn’t who he said he was and not saying anything about it puts you in the co-conspirator category as Charles Manson. Nice company you keep.
Umm, except I’m not gay. I was happily married for 21 years and unfortunately lost my husband to a service connected disability. He, and many others have literally laid down their lives down for this country, more specifically to assure that we all are able to enjoy freedom, and so that we all can enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Many who know me, believe me to be one of the most Godly people that they know. I am often commended on my morals, and on my spiritual life and connection to The Creator. The real sick people are those who flaunt their hatred toward others, rather than realizing we are all different and we all have the right to live the lives of our own choosing. Trying to limit another American’s life is sick if you ask me.
Wow….read Romans chapter 2 and tell me how you can be commended on being a Godly person. Seems to me that your ideals are not The Creator’s ideals. Can’t have it both ways. Gay people can do what gay people want to do, but as a Christian, I can’t condone that. Voting yes is condoning the sin…if you believe the Bible, homosexuality is a sin. We all sin, but we shouldn’t be encouraging it. You are letting your human emotions dictate what you feel should be right rather then understanding that God has told us that homosexuality is an abomination to mankind…Romans 2 is pretty harsh…that’s why you can’t even read it aloud in Canada without being charged with a hate crime. We believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness but i’m not going to let everyone do what pleases them. XfactorBilly is right….marrying pets and having sex with pets is happening today…zoophilia…look it up. We live in a “obey your thirst” society…whatever makes you happy, you have the right to do it…where does it end? Someday there will be people that will sue the government because they feel they should have the right to have sexual relations with their dog and marry them because they love them. People already sleep with animals…God knew, that’s why it’s all covered in the Bible…read Leviticus…always been sick people. No person should be judging but we should be able to stand for what we believe.
Funny that you bring up Leviticus. Do you follow all of the old testament rules? Do you eat pork or shellfish? Do you wear clothing of mixed fibers? Do you support a rape victim being forced to marry her rapist? If you can’t even follow all the rules you supposidly believe in, why should people who do not believe be forced to follow your viewpoint?
We’re not bound by old testament law. Are you trying to defend sleeping with animals and incest by arguing your point? Listen, everyone sins..everyone does stuff..we’re not perfect, the point is that your not supposed to enjoy sin and knowingly, willingly and purposefully continue to sin. I wish that you all could debate this intelligently..when did i ever say that we should force anybody to something, or not do something? Look at my post again…i said gay people can do what they want…i am just not going to support it by voting for legislation that endorses same sex relationships. Lets get off of religion, how does homosexuality have any natural function in the existence of animals…survival of the fittest, darwinism? If homosexuaity was genetic, it would be passed on…except homosexuals can’t procreate…well, except for technology allows us to do so now. I guess my point is, even without my beliefs and religion…homosexuality has no functional purpose in nature, it is a deviation.
And yet in your comment, you bring up leviticus, an old testament law.
We don’t live in the natural world and we are not slaves to nature.
There is a lot more to a human being then simple hereditary and genetic codes (most of which we still don’t understand). Homosexuals do procreate-my own boyfriend has two children! (Which is great, because I don’t want any and he’s already done that…). And straight people make gay people (like my parents did).
I know some VERY fit and VERY strong homosexuals that would definitely survive, by the way, so I am not sure what that point is. And, yeah, if there were an island only inhabited by gay people, they would not die off, they would still procreate. I don’t know what people are thinking sometimes…
Normally when people bring up the “put all the gays on an island” argument, they mean that you put only one gender on that island. So technically, if you had an island of only gay men, yes, we would die off (although our time on that island would be FABULOUS). However, when using this argument as a reason that gay is “not natural”, they conveniently forget that if you filled an island with only straight men, that they too would die off (and be decidedly less fabulous).
Ha, yes! I assumed they meant that we wouldn’t want to procreate with the lesbians, but they’d have to know that we would. So, then, it must be on an island of men only. Just like in South Pacific!
CRS – best comment I’ve read in a long time, it was fabulous!
Why thank you! It’s nice to bring a bit of humor in tense debates.
If I had to choose being on an island with all straight or all gay men. I’m going with the gay guys because as you said, it would be fabulous. A bunch of straight men would just ruin it in days and they would all want to be the alpha male and just like in prison a good amount of the straight men would just end up having sex with men in a matter of time.
Us gays would have that island tastefully decorated in a matter of hours.
I know you would. Some of the nicest homes I’ve been in have belonged to homosexual couples. I’m not saying all homosexuals keep a fabulous home but the majority of the ones I’ve been in have been just that, fabulous.
Well, I just finished being the husband (mowing the lawn) and the wife (vacuuming the floors), so our house is looking a little more fabulous now!
And we’d all have great haircuts!
But you bring up a good point. There are some industries that have a higher than average number of gay men and women. I’ve always felt it odd that, for instance, conservatives and republicans should love Disneyland, watch Disney movies and tv, yet want to boycott Disney because it allows same-sex partner benefits for its employees? The message I get is that it’s fine to provide services and entertainment for the people, but we don’t deserve the same protections and benefits provided by our employer. How is that fair?
I would have a lot more respect for conservative groups if, when they boycotted companies that support same sex marriage, they would actually boycott ALL companies, not just the one’s that are convenient for them to boycott. I would still disagree, but they would at least be showing consistency and dedication. But instead, groups like One Million Moms will complain about a JCPenny add that has a same sex couple, but are oddly silent when Facebook donates to same sex marriage. To them, it’s easy to buy clothing from a place other than JCPenny’s, but it would be a bit more inconvenient if they took their Facebook down in protest.
listen, we don’t need to argue beliefs…they will never be the same…i’m just saying that we have a right to vote against same sex marriage….that’s not forcing anything down your throats…it’s just what we believe. I’m not going to be all bent out of shape if it passes…because i know that it will eventually. I just don’t support it. There are A – holes on both sides…point is we both just want what we believe is right, that doesn’t make us wrong.
No actually you don’t have a “right to vote on same sex marriage”. Civil Marriage is a right. The Supreme Court has ruled that it is a right. You don’t get to vote on someone else’s rights. You have every right to view religious marriage as between a man and a woman. No one is asking you to change that. Same sex couples just want the same government recognition of their relationships that are afforded to heterosexuals.
Civil marriage to a person of the opposite sex is everyone’s right. So this is not about equal rights.
But, you and anyone else supporting same sex marriage will argue that you should have the right to marry someone you love. Well, how about if you love someone who is already married? Should you still have that right? I think we call it bigamy. And it is illegal. At least until enough bigamists start a crusade, just as the SSM crowd have done, to change the law in their favor. After all, how would a group of people getting married to each other affect me one iota? This is the fallacy of the SSM debate. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Anything else is something less than that. That is why it has been the traditional view for thousands of years, and only recently has anyone sought to change it. SSM is not about commitment and love – it is about an “equal rights movement” and an agenda. Once SSM is passed, what will be next? Legalized bigamy? Marriage to children? A woman last month made the news because she wanted to marry herself. She obviously had a mental disorder. So, if we “discriminate” against her and deny her the right to marry herself, are we being “intolerant”? That is the exact path that the SSM debate has taken over the past 15 years. Create the idea of a victim and the concern that we are being intolerant to gain sympathy. If you are gay, you choose to forego traditional relationships. Or, you “naturally” forego traditional relationships. Yet, those who seek SSM seem to want it both ways.
“Civil marriage to a person of the same race is everyone’s right.” That argument didn’t work in the 60’s and it’s not going to work now.
Oh, so then by extension, civil marriage to anyone or anything must be ok. Marriage to a married person must be fine as well. Bigamy, here we come.
Subject: [bdn] Re: Final wording of same-sex marriage question issued
Anyone that can consent, yes. If a man, a woman, and a woman want to have legal recognition of their relationship, and everyone involved knows about the situation, I have no legal reason to prevent them.
So, plural marriage is ok with you, because you perceive that no one is victimized by it? Because consent is the standard you propose.
Wouldn’t
you have a different argument if psychologists suddenly determined that being gay were a mental defect, similar to drug addiction, or cleptomania; thus, homosexuals were incapable of consent to marry? Would that change your argument? Bear in mind, I’m being purely hypothetical here, for the sake of discussion. The reason I bring it up is that homosexuality was viewed quite differently by the scientific community in the not so distant past; and my concern would be that the scientific community could decide that pedophilia, for example, is a natural behavior, and that children as young as 12 have the capacity to consent. You see, I don’t trust the “scientific community” to be right about everything. In the early part of the 20th century, homosexuality was, in fact, considered to be a mental illness. Now, that same scientific community has changed its mind, and the reason is generally because society has become more accepting of homosexual behavior. So, if society becomes more accepting of what is now considered “abnormal” – will science decide in the future that the abnormal is normal?
Changing the definition of marriage is merely one outcome of an evolving viewpoint of both society and science.
Subject: [bdn] Re: Final wording of same-sex marriage question issued
Well if you have the right for a man to marry a women, then shouldn’t that man have the right to marry a married women? You have straight marriage, did that lead to Bigamy? No, same thing here. Also Marriage is a contract signed by two people that have legal rights. Children can not sign that contract. As for the women with the mental disorder, marriage is between 2 people. BOOM ROASTED!
I believe the proper term is LAWYERED.
It is between two people, man and woman, today.
The Same Sex Marriage proponents are seeking to redefine marriage to allow for men to marry men and women to marry women. The logical next step is for someone to propose plural marriage, and we can further redefine it.
I married a woman, and that did NOT lead to my marrying multiple women, because then I would not be married, I would be a bigamist. That is the point. Why do you suppose the laws about bigamy are on the books? Children can be tried as adults and found guilty of crimes and punished as adults. It will be a matter of time before a child decides they have an equal right to be married based on the same equal protection and due process clauses our Supreme Court upheld in 1967. Or, don’t children enjoy the same rights guaranteed by our Constitution?
Subject: [bdn] Re: Final wording of same-sex marriage question issued
As for the children, SCIENCE has shown that children lack the mental capacity to consent. Therefore, they cannot consent. Until there is sufficient evidence that children have the mental capacity of adults, the idea that same sex marriage will legalize pedophilia is merely a scare tactic.
And yet, psychologists routinely determine that children were capable of “consenting” to heinous crimes, such that they acted as adults. Which leads to a discussion of what age is appropriate to consider a child a child.
Subject: [bdn] Re: Final wording of same-sex marriage question issued
wow two different things going on here. One is a crime the other is a legally binding contract. Same thing that when you join the military at 17 you can back out before you turn 18.
And the point was about the age of consent and the potential for it to change in the future. Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4GLTE smartphone. From : Disqus Subject : [bdn] Re: Final wording of same-sex marriage question issued mero818 wrote, in response to Ninelake: wow two different things going on here. One is a crime the other is a legally binding contract. Same thing that when you join the military at 17 you can back out before you turn 18. Link to comment Ninelake wrote: And yet, psychologists routinely determine that children were capable of “consenting”to heinous crimes, such that they acted as adults. Which leads to a discussion of what age is appropriate to consider a child a child. Subject: [bdn] Re: Final wording of same-sex marriage question issued —– Options: Reply with “Like”to like this comment, or respond in the body to post a reply comment. To turn off notifications
And the point was about the age of consent and the potential for it to change in the future. Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4GLTE smartphone. From : Disqus Subject : [bdn] Re: Final wording of same-sex marriage question issued mero818 wrote, in response to Ninelake: wow two different things going on here. One is a crime the other is a legally binding contract. Same thing that when you join the military at 17 you can back out before you turn 18. Link to comment Ninelake wrote: And yet, psychologists routinely determine that children were capable of “consenting”to heinous crimes, such that they acted as adults. Which leads to a discussion of what age is appropriate to consider a child a child. Subject: [bdn] Re: Final wording of same-sex marriage question issued —– Options: Reply with “Like”to like this comment, or respond in the body to post a reply comment. To turn off notifications
See your logic fails. People that want to marry multiple people are not going to use same sex marriage. It has nothing to do with people wanting to marry multiple people. You mean all of a sudden because same sex marriage is legalize then people will only then try to marry multiple people? People have been trying to marry multiple people well before SSM debate. You could actually argue that Marriage between one man and one women has lead to people wanting to Legalize multiple marriage, not the other way around. Well children can not legally sign a contract. so that Argument is mute. Children do not have the same rights guarantee by the Constitution. That is why they can not vote. so BOOM ROASTED!
So then, children do not have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? All men are not created equal? We see what generalizations do to the debate, do we not?
Of course, children do not have the same rights as adults, boom roaster, NOR DO HOMOSEXUALS HAVE THE RIGHT TO MARRY THE SAME SEX. Thank you for making my point!! Because our laws currently dictate such, and the Constitution does not specifically provide for it. Until a sitting Supreme Court, with liberal or conservation leanings, decides for the rest of us what the Constitution says.
And my logic is dead on: marriage is defined as a union of one man and one woman. State laws across the country supported that definition since our country’s founding. Only recently have a few states decided to change the definition by allowing men to marry men, and women to marry women. So, the next step, since marriage has first been redefined by SSM supporters, would be to allow for further redefinition by other groups.
Subject: [bdn] Re: Final wording of same-sex marriage question issued
“It is between two people, man and woman, today.”
~~~~~~
Yes. Here in Maine. But that’s not true in a lot of places.
Convicted murders can marry, too. They may not be allowed to consummate it, but I don’t think that sex is a requirement of marriage.
Well, I was hoping to marry the person I love, who happens to be a man. Most people are lucky enough that the law lets them marry the person they love.
Huh-I just caught that line about “create the idea of a victim.” As if all the stories we hear are made up. As if the nonsense we experience to our face is all in our minds.
Well said.
And there are people who don’t view marriages outside of a certain church as being actual marriages. So be it. No one wants to change that.
As Pastor Emrich said this month, the constitution guarantees that churches won’t be forced to marry couples if they don’t want to.
That doesnt make it a fact or right for that matter. Supreme Court Justices are prone to the same bias as society, and unfortunately the Constitution leaves a lot to interpretation. Someone said it’s differing opinions, and that is exactly what it is, and in a democratic society we solve that by majority vote. Just the way it is. I recognize every humans right to freedom and happiness, I just beleive you could have that with cicil unions and leaving the definition of marriage what it is. All or nothing is sometimes counter productive.
Well, until the Supreme Court overturns Loving v. Virginia, that is the law of the land. Marraige is a right, and rights don’t get put up to a vote.
Do you think allowing any two adult humans to marry is a slippery slope to people marrying animals? Was “allowing” mixed race marriages the first step on this slope?
Perhaps when there is a referendum brought forth to allow bestiality, you should address that topic then. Right now you are off topic.
“we all have the right to live the lives of our own choosing. Trying to limit another American’s life is sick if you ask me.”
Can James Holmes use that defense?
That isn’t a rational comparison.
Abbyisgod is not a rational person. Abbyisgod is a troll who should go outside and play in the sunshine before his/her summer vacation is over. Middle School is right around the corner!
☆彡
Nice person attach there! You do know they are not tolerated, right! That is why I flagged it!!!
Typical comeback form a small minded person incapable of any tolerance whatsoever! When you you liberals going to grow up!
When you contribute nothing to the conversation other than insults and snark, yes people are going to assume you are a troll. So if you have a rational reason as to why same sex marriage should be illegal or legal, provide it.
And why not? Either we all have the same rights or we don’t. Or are you saying gays are ‘special’?
We do have the same rights to live our lives as we choose, provided we do not interfere with other people’s rights. James Holmes did not follow this. That is why it is not relevant. Currently, gays do not have equal right.
☆彡 ☆ミ
Apparently you are equating equal rights to outright anarchy.
Real classy, using a tragedy like that to insult someone.
James Holmes opened fired on dozens of people, killing some and injuring many – if you don’t understand that what he did is a capital crime punishable by death or life imprisonment then there is truly something wrong. You are doing nothing in this forum but insulting others, trivializing tragedy and trying to get a rise out of people. Same-sex couples are not committing a punishable crime by petitioning for the same legal right to marriage as you and I already have.
Pathetic comment. And yes I flagged it.
Jack
As did I.
Well if you want to marry you son good luck to you. I wish you the best in changing the incest laws.
As far as your dog or pet monkey good luck with that too. You will be a very, very wealthy man since you will have the only dog or pet monkey on the planet that a) has conscious thought, b) can read a contract, c) can give informed consent and d) can make their mark (oh wait male dogs “mark” all the time) ahhh sign their legal name to a contract.
God has blessed my life to find a person to share it with in honesty, support and truth. We volunteer, give to charity, and we’re there for our neighbors (and they’re there for us).
You seem to oppose some abstract idea of what a homosexual is. I think if you got to know some of us as individuals, and not as “those people,” perhaps you’d find we have much more in common than separates us.
So much for shock, exactly the opposite effect for determining your validity.
Also, don’t generalize. Far more than gays are in favor of SSM.
Oh, and what are your creds for calling gays “sick”. You’re digging the hole, deeper and deeper …
Who gave you the right to judge anybody?
zzzzzzzzz
Will you stop posting here Pat Robertson?
Would you feel the same way if your son or daugher (assuming anyone might procreate with you) was gay? Wouldn’t you still love them just the same and want the very best for them, including their being able to marry their life partner if they so choose?
So you are saying the minority has the right to set the rules the majority MUST live by? Does Harry Reid know this?
The minority is not “setting a rule”, the minority is fighting for a right that they are already Constitutionally guaranteed. In terms of rights, it doesn’t matter what the majority thinks, a right is a right and no one should get to vote on someone else’s rights.
Where in the Constitution is the right to marry found?
The Supreme Court ruled in 1967, in Loving v. Virgina, that marriage is a fundamental right. So until that ruling is overturned, that is the law all courts must follow. As such, it is protected by the 14th amendment of the constitution for ALL Americans, not just the straight ones.
Actually, the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia, ruled as follows: Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to
our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
It says nothing about a basic right to marry someone of the same sex. And it found the specific racially-motivated statutes of Virginia to be in violation of the equal protection and due process clauses. The Constitution itself does not provide for a basic right to marry. The Supreme Court did, in 1967.
Subject: [bdn] Re: Final wording of same-sex marriage question issued
There is such a thing as case precedent. The specifics do not matter. This ruled that marriage is a right. In this specific case, they ruled that marriage cannot be denied based on race. The same ruling can be applied to people being denied marriage based on gender. Once again, this makes it the law of the land. If it is a right, it is protected by the constitution under the 14th Amendment.
In the Loving vs Virginia decision the following statements appear just above the quote you present: “These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital
personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free
men.”
Jack
The demand that our government offer civil marriage rights equally is found in the 14th Amendment.
Either we eliminate civil marriage, or extend it equally. Either one will fulfill our Constitutional obligations.
And yet every man and woman have the same right to marry today. There is no discrimination based on sex. Nor is there based on race. And sexual preference is not recognized as a protected class under federal civil rights laws. So how exactly does the 14th Amendment apply here? Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4GLTE smartphone. From : Disqus Subject : [bdn] Re: Final wording of same-sex marriage question issued ConvivialVisits wrote, in response to Ninelake: The demand that our government offer civil marriage rights equally is found in the 14th Amendment. Either we eliminate civil marriage, or extend it equally. Either one will fulfill our Constitutional obligations. Link to comment Ninelake wrote: Where in the Constitution is the right to marry found? —– Options: Reply with “Like”to like this comment, or respond in the body to post a reply comment. To turn off notifications
There is discrimination based on sex. If the two partners are the same sex, they are denied the marriage license.
Sex and sexual preference are two different things. Although, based on the historical psychological research, sexual preference was found to have its roots in a gender identity disorder. Under current civil rights law, sexual preference is not a protected class. Nice try. Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4GLTE smartphone. From : Disqus Subject : [bdn] Re: Final wording of same-sex marriage question issued crs5012723 wrote, in response to Ninelake: There is discrimination based on sex. If the two partners are the same sex, they are denied the marriage license. Link to comment Ninelake wrote: And yet every man and woman have the same right to marry today. There is no discrimination based on sex. Nor is there based on race. And sexual preference is not recognized as a protected class under federal civil rights laws. So how exactly does the 14th Amendment apply here? Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4GLTE smartphone. From : Disqus Subject : [bdn] Re: Final wording of same-sex marriage question issued ConvivialVisits wrote, in response to Ninelake: The demand that our government offer civil marriage rights equally is found in the 14th Amendment. Either we eliminate civil marriage, or extend it equally. Either one will fulfill our Constitutional obligations. Link to comment Ninelake wrote: Where in the Constitution is the right to marry found? —– Options: Reply with “Like”… —– Options: Reply with “Like”to like this comment, or respond in the body to post a reply comment. To turn off notifications
If I go to get a marriage license, I would be denied because my partner is a male. That is gender discrimination.
And yet every man and woman have the same right to marry today. There is no discrimination based on sex. Nor is there based on race. And sexual preference is not recognized as a protected class under federal civil rights laws. So how exactly does the 14th Amendment apply here? Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4GLTE smartphone. From : Disqus Subject : [bdn] Re: Final wording of same-sex marriage question issued ConvivialVisits wrote, in response to Ninelake: The demand that our government offer civil marriage rights equally is found in the 14th Amendment. Either we eliminate civil marriage, or extend it equally. Either one will fulfill our Constitutional obligations. Link to comment Ninelake wrote: Where in the Constitution is the right to marry found? —– Options: Reply with “Like”to like this comment, or respond in the body to post a reply comment. To turn off notifications
No, gays and lesbians do not currently have the right to marry their partners today.
If you are claiming we should marry someone we have no attraction to in order to fulfill this idea of “equality”– well, that’s disingenuous and you know it. The US Supreme Court struck down that kind of thinking when it was used for Jim Crow Laws to keep African-Americans from voting.
No, we must marry Ms. X so that we can procreate. THAT is the reason for marriage-to make children and to be their biological parents. ~eye roll~
Thomas Jefferson himself said the Constitution was written to protect the minority from the persecution of the majority.
No, but the founding fathers new full well that it should not be Majority Rules.
I’d yawn except these invalid arguments are particularly egregious.
Just like Jane Pitt, Brad’s mom received death threats after she voiced her opinion against gay marriage in the Springfield, MO paper. They are so tolerant.
Did anyone carry them out not?
To bad Charlie Howard’s threat wasn’t just that a threat rather then beating him and tossing him into the Kenduskeag so they could watch him drown. Did you know that Charlie begged his attackers not to toss him over the bridge because he could swim? But his attackers didn’t listen and tossed him over the bridge anyway all because he was gay.
Or Matthew Shephard, to bad those were not just words right not? Instead he was robbed, pistol-whipped, tortured tied to a fence and left to die. He suffered fractures to the back of his head and in front of his right ear. He experienced severe brainstem damage, which affected his body’s ability to regulate heart rate, body temperature, and other vital functions. There also were about a dozen small lacerations around his head, face, and neck all because he was gay.
So how many opponents to Same Sex Marriage have been killed for voicing their opposition to it not?
Are you saying that gays are too gay to kill people?
I think he is saying that when have you heard about a straight, christian, male being killed in this country for being a straight, christian male. Then compare this to the number of times people have been killed for being a member of the LGBT community.
FBI hate crime statistics by sexual orientation from 2010 – 98.5% reported were by an offender with bias against gays, lesbians and/or bisexuals. Yes there were heterosexual victims (1.5%) where the offender had a bias against their orientation – but don’t ignore the fact that LGBT people are victims of hate crimes at a significantly higher rate.
Jack
Why don’t you go back to your bible and stop trolling
Those are never OK, regardless of one’s political opinions.
You are correct X. If you disagreed, you’re shouted down and humiliated and accused of not being sensitive to others who ‘love’ each other. Talk about ‘equal rights’. Only if it is ‘their’ opinion is it okay. I get sick of being shouted down by the left and like a lot of people and a member of the ‘silent majority’.
PS — love to see the ‘divorce rate’ in states where it is allowed. I’m willing to bet it’s much higher than husbands and wives.
The states that allow Same Sex marriage have lower divorce rates. And when will people get it. Rights don’t get voted on. Your opinion does not matter when talking about another person’s rights.
“Shouted down” is rather dramatic. How are you shouted down? Am I currently shouting you down?
Perhaps one could say that I am “shouted down” when I’m told to leave the state or go live on an island. But I ain’t going to cry about the big bad bear huffing and puffing.
And really, AGAIN bringing up pedophilia? What is it with pedophilia and bestiality that’s so fascinating?!?!?
Everyone’s allowed to have an opinion, of course. But sometimes commenters write misleading and untruthful things that need to be addressed. I don’t care if some people don’t accept me or tolerate me or even like me. “I ain’t bothered!” But I do care when their prejudice directly affects me and my relationship.
So, that being said, I will also say that I think it’s unfortunate that someone is telling me that I should leave my home in Maine and go to another state in our country simply because I want to be treated the same as my fellow Mainers who are straight. I think that’s ignorant.
A persons Civil Rights should never be put up to a “popular” vote? Do you think the south would have overturned interracial marriage in 1967 if it was put out to a “popular” vote?
Again, jd, an interracial marriage is not a same sex marriage. Please stop insulting interracial couples. being a different race is not the same as marrying someone who shares the same anatomy.
So which question did you answer not?
Do you believe “A persons Civil Rights should never be put up to a “popular” vote?”
or,
“Do you think the south would have overturned interracial marriage in 1967 if it was put out to a “popular” vote?”
Do you REALLY believe any of the southern states would have voted to overturn the ban on interracial marriage in 1967?
I was in an interracial marriage. I am not offended in the least by the comparison. I am offended though that you cannot see that this is a civil rights issue and that you want to refer to interracial marriage in this way.
…..
I wouldn’t ask anyone to leave this wonderful state. I love it here in Maine, and everyone I know is supportive of our desire for civil marriage.
I promise you this– when I am able to wed one day, I surely won’t be asking anyone to leave this state, even if they disagree with how I live my life.
After you. I’m staying. I’ve been married for more than 50 years but I think SSM should pass. So, will you move out when it does?
And if its approved this time will the No side accept it, or try again?
All I can say is that its a sick way of thinking same sex marriage is totally wrong. It will never be right in my eyes. Watching Mo and Curly walking down the street holding hands. It makes me sick to even think about it.
You don’t like watching gay people? Then don’t watch.
Thats right its gross and I don’t want my kids to see it.
It’s not my responsibility to shelter your children. If you don’t want to risk them seeing same sex couples, don’t take them outside.
Maybe the Feds can find a Inland for all the sax sex couples.
I think I know what you are trying to say, but the typos are kind of distracting.
In any case, how about you find an island?
I would bet that you see gay people every single day.
If someone took away rights from you, that your next door neighbor still had, wouldn’t you try to get them back? I sure would, every possible way I could. Which in this case, has to be done through the election process, I would try every single election until I had those rights reinstated.
How can you say that. Its illegal to marry the same sex so you never had the right. So you are not losing NOTHING in the state of Maine…
Thank you for agreeing that preventing same sex marriage denies couples rights. “So you are not losing NOTHING in the state of Maine…” – double negative means you are losing something in the state of Maine.
The right was extended by our state representatives and the governor in 2009. It was in the process of becoming law when opponents petitioned for a referendum to repeal it. Remember the question had the words “repeal a law”? Also it is not “illegal” for same-sex couples to marry – they just are not legally recognized by the state because they do not have a civil marriage license.
Jack
Hopefully they will never let the same sex marriages go through in the state of maine. Adam and Eve is the way it should be. Adam and Gev is the wrong way to be.
Adam and Eve, propagating the world through incest, not Adam and Steve, propagating the world through incest.
It’s out of the hands of the legislature and the governor, so they can’t “never let the same sex marriages go through in the state of maine.”
I just don’t understand why you’d want gay people to be forced to marry people they don’t love. Would you rather your children marry people who really love them or people who are trying so hard to go against their nature? The latter happens all the time-gay people trying to be straight and marrying someone of the opposite gender because people like you want it to be so.
My parents want me to lead a full and happy life. If that involves marrying a man, that’s fine.
Go across the border into NH they will let you get married and then you well be happy. Then they can over take Hampton Beach.
I don’t think you understand. I live in Maine.
Maine does not want same sex marriages. They voted no last year for and hopefully they do the same this year. I hope that you understand.
When you make that statement you imply that the whole state voted against it. That is not true. 53% of the people who went to vote voted to reject the law that was created. You could also say that the state of Maine voted for LePage as governor, but we know that isn’t really true, either.
So, about that island….which island did you have in mind? When this is law in Maine, will you move to an island, North Carolina, or move to Iran?
Maybe that would a great place for the same sex marriage to move to Iran. Great idea that you would pick Iran??
I chose Iran because its intolerance toward homosexuals. Well, there would be intolerance if there were gays there-President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stated in 2007 that there were no homosexuals in Iran. So…..
Ha! My mom calls herself my boyfriend’s illegal mother in law!
Ah, yes… Just like the republicans that have voted on repealing the affordable health care act 31 times.
Let’s not. Do the correct thing (note I avoided “right” because of the ill-deserved political connotations).
surprisingly enough, we already did decide this question before – and here it is again. And regardless of the outcome – we will probably see it again.
AMEN
Everytime this goes to a vote by the people, they turn it down.
Since “everytime” implies more than once not how many times have the people of Maine voted on SSM?
People’s understandings evolve when they learn more.
not falling for the “evolve” buzzword. That is part of Obama’s talking points. Never was a believer in evolution.
People’s understandings change when they learn more.
And this one point needs to be proclaimed throughout the campaign because Mainers are really only hearing one side of the issue. Besides, unlike other points, such as, sexual orientation is not predetermined, this one is not easily refuted by denying valid sources of information.
Yes, you are correct. In fact, it cannot be refuted at all. However, that statement needs to be put into context. The first vote was 14 years ago when the country was very different. Since then, we have seen 6 states achieve and retain it, our nations capital achieve it, two states achieve and lose it, and, this fall- two states achieve and will vote on it, one state with an amendment to prohibit it, and the first state in the nation place it on the ballot to allow it. We’ve seen the entire country of Canada allow it from Maritimes to the Pacific. We’ve seen one country in Africa and numerous other countries in Europe, some of which are very Catholic, allow full marriage and two more, England and France, are poised to allow it as well. We have seen DADT fall with little to no issues. We have seen huge corporations back SSM fights from coast to coast.
NONE of that was happening when the first votes occurred. And if the out-of-stater Schubert gets his way again in Maine, we will keep working until it passes.
In none of the states where valid marriage licenses are issued to SS couples did voters accept the law permitting this practice through the ballot box. All past attempts 27 attempts to do so were rejected by the voters, yes, even in the liberal state of California. Voters are rightfully suspicious of the impact such a law could have, and for valid reasons.
Except there haven’t been any actual negative consequences, but there have been positive consequences. So their fears are irrational, and you can see the country slowly starting to realize that.
But how is it affecting the people in the states where it is currently legal? And it is fact that the people have not repealed it in those six states. In fact, legislators in New Hampshire couldn’t get enough support from their constituents (the people) to put it back on the ballot.
I will never get past the concept that this is something that the people HAVE THE RIGHT to vote on. And I will never get past the hypocrisy of welcoming people like Frank Schubert in this state to spread lies, mislead people, and downright manipulate the election.
(I would never characterize California as a liberal state. There are more areas that are conservative than liberal).
Without question, when people learn attempts to introduce “gay married” has failed in 27 statewide elections without one single win, people will start to think for themselves and not just be persuaded by what they read in this state’s two major newspapers.
Then why haven’t the people repealed it in the states where it is legal? Why did such actions fail in New Hampshire?
I think many people in Maine don’t want our state to be lumped in with the backward notions of North Carolina, Mississippi, or Arizona.
Think you might be on the losing side this time around.
we did it before let’s do it again!
Way back in the ’60’s the Catholic church required me to take lessons in papism before they would allow my marriage. Then, a different priest almost wouldn’t marry us. The churches can still do as they please, because it isn’t about them, it is about 2 people. The churches have the first amendment.
Of course and the churches can do that regardless of the law. Notice how the state doesn’t step in when they refuse to marry a couple with individuals of differing faiths or those who have previously been divorced? The state can’t force the church to hold ceremonies.
This is about marriage licenses that the state doles out.
I totally agree.
I think that it is totally unacceptable for a person actively running for office to be making or overseeing any decisions related to the ballot on which they should appear. This is nuts. Summers needs to take a leave of absence or resign.
This has never been an issue when other Secs of State ran for office before. Why should it be an issue now?
Would it have anything to do with the party affiliation said candidate is aligned with??
No its
Chick-fil-A.
Then you would be whining that he quit his job!
You are assuming a fact which is not in evidence.
Denying two men their desire to become man and wife is no more discrimination than denying a man a wedding license who wants to marry the Brooklyn Bridge.
Worse, you already have the right to marry.
You want to elevate sodomy to the level of marriage, and this, we must forbid.
And you are making statements that are misunderstandings at best.
When two men wed, one does not decide to be ‘wife’ and the other ‘husband’. They are husbands to each other.
And to compare the lifelong, supportive commitment two people share in marriage to absurdities like marrying inanimate objects is laughable.
Many homosexuals do act out the role of husband wife in same sex “marriages.”
It is called “couple-ism.”
Look it up on Google.
Pardon me, Sir.
I believe you just said that when homosexuals enter into a same sex “marriage” they are husbands to one another.
?!
Is this not madness, people?
Will you allow this to pass for Holy Matrimony in Maine?
Holy Matrimony is an exclusively religious term – and it is not legally recognized unless there is a signed civil marriage license – but if would prefer to separate religious marriage from civil marriage, go ahead and petition to change it.
Jack
We do not want any discrimination! If two straight dudes want to marry, for whatever reason-like insurance or whatever, then they’re husbands, too. It doesn’t have to be just homosexuals. There won’t be a sexuality box on the license to check.
Yeah, I looked it up and I found pages that talk about weird sexual practices or outdated gender stereotypes.
If you mean that the person who does the dishes and cooks the food, then we’re both wives. If you mean the person who mows the lawn and fixes the wiring, then we’re both husbands.
In any case, it’s not up to you to define the roles of individuals in their own marriage.
You’re right Son – my wife and I confuse roles and “act out” sometimes too. Sometimes I cook, vacuum, do laundry – I even changed diapers when our kids were younger and she sometimes takes out the trash and mows the lawn. We call it working together to get things done. Most modern couples share chores this way.
Jack
The Bridge can’t consent. My boyfriend of age can.
The RIGHT TO MARRY THE ONE PERSON I LOVE is what I don’t have, brah. YOU have that right. If you choose to marry some random Jane just because your bits fit and you can make babies, that’s your business, but don’t force that view on the rest of the country.
Check this out: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/27/amazons-founder-pledges-2-5-million-in-support-of-same-sex-marriage/?hp
Why cant you just call it civil union? Doesn’t that extend the same freedoms and priveledges, or is it just more about force feeding the minority agenda on the masses?
The same reason interracial couples couldn’t just call it a civil union. Religious people do not own that term. In the words of the conservative British prime minister, if marriage is good enough for straights, it’s good enough for everybody.
“Bill, we have been an integral part of each other’s lives now for a very long time. I find that each morning when I wake up, knowing that I will have this whole day with you in my life, I must smile. I find that when I go to bed each night, knowing that you are there next to me, I must smile. You are there for me and I am there for you, every day. I kneel down before you to ask you to civil union with me.”
Ack. Not the same. Why can’t you just call your relationship a “civil union”?
Civil unions do NOT extend the same freedoms and privileges. They are NOT recognized throughout the country and world as marriages are. In fact, there isn’t even anything remotely like a civil union in our state.
Anything that is not called marriage is not the same thing as marriage.
Getting “civil unioned” sounds so technical, impersonal, and painful. I don’t want to get “civil unioned”, I want to get married.
I have stated many times that I think a fine solution would be to eliminate civil marriage altogether, and institute civil unions for everyone.
Separate systems for each group though— civil marriage for some, civil unions for others— won’t pass Constitutional scrutiny, and would require we modify over 1,100 statutes and regulations in federal law alone.
If more than 50% of heterosexual couples prefer to live together and not get married, how come homosexuals are, it appears, the only ones who want to get married? How come 50%+ of heterosexuals don’t care about their civil rights? And how come many heterosexuals who live together who aren’t married want the homosexual couples to get married. Kind of strange, isn’t it? Is this really about civil rights, or is it about ‘in-your-face”?
☆彡
How come when a gay person does the exact same thing as a straight person, they’re suddenly flaunting it and trying to shove it down your throat? That’s a double standard and it’s highlights your personal bias against gays.
Keeping in mind I support same sex marriage….ask yourself what happens when a straight person does the same thing as a gay person. What would happen if there were straight pride parades? They would be called bigots, homophobes etc etc. Double standard indeed
I support the right for anyone who wants to organize and have a parade to show others it’s okay to be who you are. Football fans do it, Irish fans do it, patriotic Americans do it!
I even support the Klan’s right to march— but freedom of expression cuts both ways, and others are allowed to express their disapproval of what the Klan stands for… nonviolently and without violating anyone’s civil rights, of course.
It’s not a double standard, either— the opposition to gay rights are there protesting, whenever they care to express their disapproval.
Was there ever a time when straight people were fired specifically for being straight? Rounded up and raided? Demonized for being in a relationship? Been called perverts and molesters?
The answers are no. Pride parades have an important history. If you’d look into that you wouldn’t be making comments like the one you just made.
That’s one of the most bizarre things I’ve read on this issue.
OK
“If more than 50% of heterosexual couples prefer to live together and not get married, how come homosexuals are, it appears, the only ones who want to get married?”
Maybe the homosexuals have better morals then the 50 percent of heterosexuals who want to live in sin.
Morals are about the same. Homosexuals who live together are ‘living in sin’ just as are the unmarried heterosexuals. I’m glad you agree with this.
The term living in sin is extremely objective.
Except if you are not a Christian then you don’t buy into the whole “sin” thing.
And yet you’re not pushing to use the law against those heterosexuals who are living in sin. Very interesting!
I wonder that often. You don’t see them spending hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to outlaw divorce or to stop people from living together. I think the Bible is very clear about those issues, much more so than about homosexuality.
Good point!
It’s “in your face”
Your face.
LOL!
They are losing out if one goes an no will the family if the dead person can come in an take every thing an bar that person from the funeral an yes its all ready happen
Simple answer….heterosexual couples that live together have the option to get married, homosexual couples that live together don’t have that option.
Heterosexuals are getting married every day.
I have been together with the love of my life for decades. We have built a life together, and done what we can to protect it through available means– which fall short of the benefits civil marriage provides.
Why should we not be allowed to wed just because someone else wishes to stay single? That’s pretty absurd reasoning.
Unfortunate that Sec. Summers proves unwilling to put politics aside and put a question on the ballot that accurately reflects the two parts of this proposed law:
1: Allowing same-sex couples to marry; and
2: Protecting the rights of clergy and houses of worship from being forced to perform such marriages.
While not surprising, disappointing.
I’ll remind readers that the peoples veto in 2009, which dealt with a very similar law, read:
Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry and allows individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages?
Somehow Mainers were able to figure that one out.
Sounds good. It’s going to pass this time around. Can’t wait to become the first state to pass this by popular vote. What a proud day it will be.
Do you happen to recall what happened the last time the people of Maine voted on this issue?
Yeah, I do. The margin wasn’t huge and it was during an off-election year. We have three years worth of new voters and it is a Presidential election year — should be a bigger turn out. Polls show that opinions are changing, on both the left and right ends of the spectrum. It will pass this time.
….but you had the medical marajuana issue….which passed.
That had actually been passed several years ago. The vote this time was to redefine the law a little.
Actually the polls show that it is going to once again be voted down just like they show that Romeny is ahead of Obama. The problem is the liberal news only reports the results of the polls that support their position.
You should come down off a Broke Back Mountain more often, big fella.
Actually Obama is ahead and has been ahead for the entire race. Not by a huge margin but ahead nonetheless.
By polls relying on an outsized Dem sample. Dems will understandably stay home, ashamed of this fraud of a candidate.
Obama loses by 10.
Roper or Gallup you aren’t.
It is what it is! You may not like it, so pretend it doesn’t exist.
How do you know what it is! Have you seen this poll? Can you show it to us? Because others won’t!
Only in polls skewed 11 point in favor of democrats! In a straight up poll, an HONEST poll, obama is even or behind! At this point, it should be no contest for obama, so anything other than hugely ahead means he loses in November!
Which poll, please!
I’m sure you said the same thing about McCain too.
Truth be told, I never really cared for McCain.
So you voted for Obama then?
Was that not an American’s right ?
Who said it wasn’t?
No. Just because Obama was against SSM in 2008 it did not mean I voted for him. I understood then, just like I do now, that he is the wrong person for the job.
There is hope for the man !
So what do you care about some men loving other men,
if you aren’t involved, Mountain Man ?
As to the women , once they can marry, sorry, but no, you do not get to watch the nice married couples .
See, nothing really changes by voting YES.
: )
That my saying ….. ” Was that not an American’s right ?
The foools need to be called out more in my very traditional American values opinion”
to jd2008jd’s post just below ” You voted for Obama then? ” …. activated the BDN/ Disqus robo censor is very sad.
I don’t really think that the BDN is activity trying to dumb down Americans, but do I blame their international corporateist bosses, their internet partners, at Discus for doing so. Don’t you , too ?
So it goes.
Ah-yup , and Romney, that Mormon Bishop, too.
So please share with us the polls you have been reading.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/trust_on_issues_obama_v_romney
http://www.gallup.com/poll/156194/Democratic-Voting-Enthusiasm-Down-Sharply-2004-2008.aspx
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
http://documents.nytimes.com/latest-new-york-times-cbs-news-poll
Should I continue?
Actually, these polls are irrelevant because the President is elected in the Electoral College. And besides, the Conventions and debates have yet to be held. Plus, the President is an excellent campaigner, and Romney can’t seem to keep his foot out of his mouth.
Thank you for posting those links. Your points are better made with back up like this.
However, one poll is from 2009, one poll is about enthusiasm and another about trust. Only one poll address who a voter will choose for president and, you’re right, it is a slight lead of Romney over Obama.
Now, I will post links:
March 2012 Public Policy Poll. http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/03/maine-miscellany.htmlApril 2012 Pew Research Center poll.http://www.people-press.org/2012/04/25/more-support-for-gun-rights-gay-marriage-than-in-2008-or-2004/ (I like that there is more support for gun rights, too!)May 2012 ABC News/Washington Post poll.http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/polling/gay-marriage-opposition-hits-new-low/2012/05/23/gIQAd8yRjU_page.htmlA list of other polls that show a trend opposite of what MountainMan 73 states: http://pollingreport.com/civil.htm
And the polls you refer to are????????
I haven’t seen any polls that show the opposition having a lead. Honest question, where are the polls you are talking about?
No answer… Must not really be any polls that say that, I guess?
And what questionable pools are you citing?
Would those be in ground, above ground or wading “pools”?
Sorry Gopher I normally don’t comment on spelling or key stroke errors but your brought a smile to my face. :)
You are wrong on this. Polls have Yes winning by a large margin, which means it will probably win by a small margin, based on last time. And the President will win Maine, along with the rest of the northeastern states.
Are Pew and Gallup liberal news outlets?
Can you cite polls showing that the gay marry is opposed by a majority of people? Please show that to us because all I can find is the opposite.
Dem excitement for this election is running very low, understandably.They have an utter failure for an incumbent.
Same sex loses by 4
Obama loses by 10.
President Obama will carry Maine.
Maine is a freckle on an elephant’s a././.;,.
henrietta doesn’t really matter if Obama carries Maine or not. SSM will be far closer this time and if it wins (which I believe it will) it will be 51/49 or 52/48.
Obama loses by 10? See, with a comment like that you just demonstrate that you’re not operating in reality.
Time will tell if it’s him or you! Only 102 more days to go!
////\\
I believe it was a 6% margin thats small
That’s so yesterday …
Yes, I do want marriage licences to be able to be issued to same-sex couples! You don’t chose who you love…know how much I heard that growing up here? It was usually aimed between a poor and middle/class couple, or an interracial couple…same thing goes here.
NEXT on the agenda: OVER TURN DOMA!
I will be voting yes. It’s the right and fair thing to do.
Thank you for your support!
Legalizing gay marriage got voted down before, it’ll get voted down again.
Words cannot undo the simple truth: marriage is between man & woman.
Dream on
Yessah
If you are a conservative Christian, yes. Newsflash: not everyone is a conservative Christian and the US Constitution clearly says that the church and state will always be separate. The state needs to account for all of its citizens, not just Christians. It does not do anyone any harm to pass this bill. Think about it.
Actually it says that the government will not make any laws regarding religion. That is all it says. It does not actually say that religion cannot have any influence on government.
Ah no it does not just say “that the government will not make any laws regarding religion”. It says much more than that:
” Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…..”
And, that phrase has been interpreted to mean separation of Church and State. Thomas Jefferson wrote “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.” – Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists, 1802. This has been upheld by the Supreme Court as being the intention of that section of the first amendment.
100% correct.
So you say, but in this country we are free to have our own belief system. I can’t force you to live by my belief system, just like you have no right for force a same-sex couple to live by your belief system. That is one of the great things about this country. My husband and many others lost their lives in service to this country to preserve freedom for ALL.
Curious what words
and “all men are created equal” originally meant only white male property owners. The language can evolve.
Words cannot undo the simple truth:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Summers is such a jerk. Why couldn’t he make the language more clearer for what it was intended for. Why? Because he’s against it.
You do mean that as scarcasm don’t you? Whichever way you intend to vote on this issue and it is your right to vote either way, you have to admit the wording is stated very simply.
Yes, he could have been more accurate. He could have worded it ‘do you want to allow people of the same sex to be able to redefine marriage and to legally, openly practice sodomy under the guise of marriage.’
zzzzzzzz
I’m concerned that they are so fixated on sodomy and sex. It doesn’t seem to Godly to me to fixate on those things that other couples do.
This is not a reply to his question.
It is an ad hominem attack, and therefore false and unfair.
Cool, I am glad you oppose ad hominem attacks that are false and unfair!
You’re going to retract 99% of your statements now, right?
Well, clearly you are unable or unwilling to answer the question.
Why are a disproportionate number of serial killers, among them Gordon Northcott, John Wayne Gacy, and Juan Corona, homosexuals?
And why do a disproportionate number of homosexuals practice sadomasochism?
I have answered the question consistently— you are lying. At every turn you make up claims to support your hatred for homosexuals, and then pretend we are avoiding your questions.
We aren’t avoiding anything, we are pointing out you are outright lying.
I rest my case.
Case closed.
WOW!! “Case closed” says SonofBangor.
No evidence presented. No proof to back up claims. Nothing but “I say”.
On second thought, your right “Case closed” case dismissed for lack of evidence!
—–
Sodomy is not illegal – and if you are seeing people practicing it openly then you should probably turn off your computer and cancel your adult movie package. You probably want to quit peeking in your neighbor’s windows too – that is illegal and perverted.
Jack
People who are dirty are always trying to make someone else look dirty so the focus isn’t on their own dirt. I am not doing those things and you must hate that. You are just trying to get people’s eyes off the real problem and the main subject – homosexuality.
No True…you keep bringing up sodomy as if the only sexual community that engages in it are homosexuals. When it is politely pointed out to you that it is practiced by heterosexuals (married and unmarried) you attempt to change the subject.
Either admit that heterosexuals engage in the sexual act of sodomy or continue to look really, really silly by ignoring that fact.
But here is a little secret True….we know you will never admit it because it weakens your argument when it comes to sodomy and the homosexual community.
It is wrong no matter who does it.
You want to elevate it to the status of marriage.
Are you willing to undo opposite-sex marriages if they practice it? You are missing the boat on what marriage is if you believe it is defined by how people have sex. It is about love, commitment, support and respect – legally binding a couple in the eyes of civil law.
Jack
Calling someone else dirty seems pretty dirty to me. Focus on your own dirt.
You were the one who said ” to legally, openly practice sodomy under the guise of marriage.” My point was that people don’t generally practice sodomy (or other overtly sexual behavior) in the open – that would be public indecency and it is against the law. And again the practice of sodomy is not illegal for consenting adult couples whether they are opposite-sex or same-sex under civil law, married or not.
Jack
zzzzzz
The real problem as I see it, are bigots such as yourself.
Absolutely pathetic …
Pssst….heterosexuals (married and unmarried) practice sodomy.
That is a more precise statement of the question under consideration.
“Do you want to elevate sodomy to the status of marriage?”
“Do you want to put unhealthy practices on a par with marriage?”
Married people engage in sodomy Son….I thought we have been over this enough that you would understand that by now.
In fact I cannot think of any sexual activity that a homosexual or lesbian couple can engage in that a heterosexual couple cannot. How about you Son, can you?
That’s pretty clear all right!
You keep bringing up sodomy…secret fettish of yours?
“Same-sex marriage proponents were required to gather at least 57,277 valid signatures, or 10 percent of the total number of people who cast ballots for governor in the last gubernatorial election.”
When this measure is defeated again in November, and it will be defeated, the next thing that need to happen is to change the law to require twice the percent of signatures to place an issue on the ballot once it has been defeated by popular vote.
It won’t be defeated.
Yes, actually it will.
Unlike Dickens, your expectations can not be described as great …
10 to 1 MountainMan didn’t get that…
I’ll take that bet! Put your money where your mouth is!
Then I would suggest you go gather the signatures to change the Maine Constitution if that is how you feel.
Yeah, so we can shoot it down.
Since we got well over 100,000 signatures, that wouldn’t be a problem.
Dream on …
Well, I see you got the question watered down.
What’d you want instead?
For you to stop screeching and go away! I’m working on getting signatures for that referendum! Five more to go!!
Smile, it’s a joke!
It takes two to have a conversation. If you don’t like the tone or tenor of the conversation you could just walk away.
You’re screeching.
Who is “you”? Proponents wanted the religious exemption to stay in and opponents wanted to add “redefine marriage” – neither got what they asked for but they agreed with this wording.
Jack
Who is “they”?
“They” being proponents and opponents. You see, when you specify the nouns earlier in the sentence, you can replace them later on with a pronoun to shorten the sentence and improve the flow.
And that wording is watered down! But thank you so much for your condescension. Does it hurt to be that arrogant?
When you give snark, you get snark back.
Anything you disagree with is snark? You must live a very snarky life!
No, saying things like “Typical comeback form a small minded person incapable of any tolerance whatsoever! When you you liberals going to grow up!” is snark. If you wanted to have a reasonable debate on the issue, I would be willing to have that debate. All you’ve done is make comments that contribute nothing to the discussion.
Your comment – “Well, I see you got the question watered down.” – and I asked who is “you”. It appears you are addressing someone.
“They” is clearly specified – proponents and opponents – neither got the wording they wanted.
So again I ask who is “you”?
Jack
Well, it would be the proponents, wouldn’t it. They were the ones first unhappy with the initial wording. Personally I don’t have a dog in this fight! I don’t care how it’s worded because I understand the intent. If you can’t grasp the intent of the question, worded either way, then SSM is not your most pressing problem.
The proponents wanted the wording to remain as it was on the referendum petition. They wanted the religious exemption statement to remain and Mr. Summers chose to take it out.
So I really don’t know why to are stating that the proponents wanted the question watered down. Is it for attention – to get a rise out of others – or just to be argumentative.
I fully grasp the intent of the question as it worded – to allow same-sex couples civil marriage licenses.
Jack
For someone with “no dog in this fight” you sure seem to have a great deal to say about the topic.
As no one here knows how you intend to vote on this issue (you have stated that) – but as you aggressively respond only to those here that are proponents it isn’t any wonder some may believe that you are an opponent or just posting for kicks.
Jack
Are you religious?
Irrelevant and none of your business!
…..
Okay Heldder, if that’s your real name, one more time – I AM NOT ABBY! If you knew Abby, you would know she see’s herself as a God. You, however, don’t know Abby and you don’t know me!
Now, did I ask you to justify YOUR name? No! I have had to explain my name to everyone who thought it had some deep-seated meaning. I’m sorry that ‘arrogantliberal’ wasn’t available when I chose it.
Abby calm down. You chose your screen name. No one chose it for you. You must have a reason for selecting a screen name that alludes to you seeing yourself as a deity.
…..
How does SSM impact your marriage (assuming you are married) Abby?
Irrelevant! The question is; How does it impact you! And thanks to your plethora of posts, we all know the answer.
What are you going to do after November 6th when this issue is no longer the purpose of your existence?
To assume make an *ss out of u and me. Many straight people support extending civil marriage to same-sex couples because they should have the equal right to marry someone they love and get the same protections, rights and benefits that my wife and I do. Where do you think the 47% came from in 2009?
Jack
Then perhaps you should refrain from assuming! You have no idea how I intend to vote on this issue, but that hasn’t stopped you from assuming!
You seem very free with advice, perhaps you should try taking it.
When you say things like ” You can get both of those with a civil union. Please be truthful, tell him what you really want – to usurp the word ‘Marriage”.” its resonable to assume that you would be against same sex marriage.
It would seem crystal clear as you’ve stated numerous times how evil you think gays are,how marriage is “sacred and should only be between a man and a woman”, that you will be voting no….don’t have to be Einstein to figure that out.
You are correct I don’t know and I did not imply that I did know how you intend to vote on this issue. My comment referenced your assumption that this issue was the purpose of jd2008jd’s existence.
Too bad that your comments come across as uncivil to many posters here.
Jack
☆彡
Wishful thinking! I’ve been out of school longer than most you the posters here have been out of diapers! You just hate it when someone has the audacity to questions your beliefs.
There you go with the snarky comments again.
I have stated that it doesn’t impact me one iota. But it does impact people I know.
Attacking posters Abby is against the rules by the way.
Do you feel attacked? By a simple question? Man, you are not going to be a happy camper come November!
My “existance” is not dependent on the result of the November election. The question was fine, the “editorial” comment was unnecessary Abby.
I think it’s a good thing for a ballot question to have clarity. We are asking for the civil marriage license, so that’s what should be on the ballot.
And the last version wasn’t clear?
Actually no it wasn’t, because “get married” is a vague term. I can already “get married” in a church with my partner, but without the marriage license it is simply a ceremony affirming our commitment to one another.
So you didn’t know how you would vote after reading the former version? Too vague for you? I’m glad this clears thing up for you. I’ll also be glad when November finally gets here and this entire matter can be put to rest! (But probably not as glad as you will be, Just a guess.)
You are just so hostile sometimes.
These people could care less about the rights of churches or people of faith It’s all a selling campaign so they can get special rights and make all the rest of us pay for it.
1. Income taxes will increase to cover marriage benefits to homosexual couples.
2.Social Security taxes will have to increase to now pay for survivor support benefits for homosexuals.
3. Medical insurance may have to increase to cover the high risk health costs associated among homosexuals. (Aids, colon cancer, hepatitis and other diseases are very high among those practicing sodomy) -I believe is a natural consequence to an unnatural lifestyle.
4.Indoctrination of our children in public school to accept homosexual behavior and same sex marriage (without the need of the parental consent or permission for such teaching)
5.Our workplaces will become restricted when it comes to turning down a homosexual applicant because they will have to produce the burden of proof.Even if that homosexual is not qualified he will have an advantage in the hiring process. (this is not fair and equal treatment to the rest of us)
6. Free speech for those of us opposed to homosexuality will be curtailed once same-sex marriage is approved, it will not be long before you will be fined or imprisoned for expressing any opposition to homosexuality. People with religious
moral convictions will be considered worse than racists and their
quoting the Biblical passages on homosexuality will be viewed as hate
speech.
Civil rights was never meant to cover perverse lifestyles. Don’t believe these people are concerned about your rights because they are not.
Every thing you are saying is a lie !
2.Social Security taxes will have to increase to now pay for survivor support benefits for homosexuals. that’s a lie they all ready pay those taxes
2.Social Security taxes will have to increase to now pay for survivor support benefits for homosexuals. they all ready pay those taxs Women do sodomy all the time do a search if you dn’t belive me i did do a search thats how i foind out
Sodomy? Really?
You got a dictionary? Or don’t you like people thinking about that part off it?
Actually I believe it is you that keeps bringing up sodomy like it is reserved for the homosexual community. It has been pointed out time and again that heterosexual couples (married and unmarried) also engage in the sexual act of sodomy.
Since it isn’t reserved for one sexual orientation why do you keep bringing it up like it is?
You really do spend more time thinking about sodomy than I do, and I’m gay.
Interesting that you can only challenge males on this point. Definitely weakens your misguided arguments.
={O]=
With a name like “GodIsTrue” he believes in a lot of fairytales and untruths.
“1. Income taxes will increase to cover marriage benefits to homosexual couples.”Please provide proof of this claim, otherwise it is your opinion.”
“2.Social Security taxes will have to increase to now pay for survivor support benefits for homosexuals.”
Umm, last I knew they were Americans first and foremost. If they work hard and have money deducted for Social Security, they have every right to get survivor benefits. The 50% divorce rate among heterosexuals will balance things out in this area.
“3. Medical insurance may have to increase to cover the high risk health costs associated among homosexuals. (Aids, colon cancer, hepatitis and other diseases are very high among those practicing sodomy) -I believe is a natural consequence to an unnatural lifestyle.”
The number of homosexual people is not going to increase because we allow them to marry, their illnesses will not increase. It may actually decrease health risks because when anyone (straight or gay) isn’t in a committed relationship, they may have more than one sexual partner. When two people are legally committed to one another, they are less likely to have multiple sex partners. I’d be more concerned about the sexually transmitted diseases that heterosexuals are passing along.
“4.Indoctrination of our children in public school to accept homosexual behavior and same sex marriage (without the need of the parental consent or permission for such teaching)”
Allowing all Mainers the ability to enter into a legal contract of marriage will NOT change the educational curriculum. There is no movement(never has been and never will be) to force schools to teach anything about homosexual marriage. Educators are the ones responsible for curriculum choices, teacher unions, and local school boards, not same-sex couples.
“5.Our workplaces will become restricted when it comes to turning down a homosexual applicant because they will have to produce the burden of proof. Even if that homosexual is not qualified he will have an advantage in the hiring process. (this is not fair and equal treatment to the rest of us)”
Work place laws on discrimination will not change any from what they are now.
“6. Free speech for those of us opposed to homosexuality will be curtailed once same-sex marriage is approved, it will not be long before you will be fined or imprisoned for expressing any opposition to homosexuality. People with religious moral convictions will be considered worse than racists and their quoting the Biblical passages on homosexuality will be viewed as hate speech.”
If the shoe fits.
“Civil rights was never meant to cover perverse lifestyles. Don’t believe these people are concerned about your rights because they are not.”
Preserving religious tradition was never meant to cover bigoted lifestyles. Don’t believe these religious people fighting to take away rights are worried about being Godly because they are not.
Also, I’m pretty sure this has something to do with gay Mexicans raising taxes on our guns.
Where does Jesus speak about the US tax code? Just curious.
“Give unto God what is God’s and give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” or words to that affect.
Definitely only to Pax Romana.
Are you serious? Gays and lesbians make up approximately 5% of the population.
1. Income taxes will increase to cover marriage benefits – perhaps if they are employed by the government, but if that is the case, don’t they increase for every heterosexual that gets married?
2. Social Security taxes will have to increase to cover survivor benefits – everyone who works under the SS system pays into it. Surviving spouses only get to collect one SS check – their deceased spouse’s or their own, not both so one account is forfeited. People who do not marry and have no dependents when they pass on forfeit their accounts.
3. AIDS, colon cancer, hepatitis and other diseases don’t care if you are gay or straight, male or female and colon cancer is more prevalent in females (65%) than males (35%).
4. Marriage is not taught in schools – this was stated back in 2009 and even Mr. McMutty said that argument was hyperbole.
5. Anti-discrimination laws covering employment, housing, public accommodations etc were passed in 2005 to include LGBT individuals. There has not been a flood of lawsuits over the last 7 years.
6. Same-sex marriage and civil unions have been legal in places in the US since 2004 – if the Westboro crowd can say anything just about they want about gays and lesbians and service-members and the US under the 1st Amendment then IMO you are pretty safe.
Jack
5%??? Boy, they sure make a lot of noise for such a small group, don’t they?? Since when does 5% make a majority?
Which one of your rights are you willing to put up for a vote?
Our Constitution protects us all, regardless of whether we are a majority or minority.
The reason there is “a lot of noise for such a small group” is because there is such a large group adding their voices to our cause— to treat us all equally under our laws.
Lots of allies for good reasons.
“1. Income taxes will increase to cover marriage benefits to homosexual couples.”
No impact on the federal level what so ever. State level remains to be seen.
~~~~~
“2. Social Security taxes will have to increase to now pay for survivor support benefits for homosexuals.”
Federal program and until the federal government repeals DOMA or it is ruled unconstitutional no impact at all
~~~~~
“3. Medical insurance may have to increase to cover the high risk
health costs associated among homosexuals. (Aids, colon cancer,
hepatitis and other diseases are very high among those practicing
sodomy) -I believe is a natural consequence to an unnatural lifestyle.”
AIDS does not discriminate based on sexual orientation. Neither does colon cancer (in fact the only people that I have know that suffered from colon cancer have been heterosexuals), hepatitis, etc…
~~~~~
“4.Indoctrination of our children in public school to accept
homosexual behavior and same sex marriage (without the need of the
parental consent or permission for such teaching)”
NO IMPACT IN SCHOOLS! It was a lie in 2009 and it is a lie now. The opponents back in 2009 admitted that this law would have no impact in the schools and they admitted they knew that it wouldn’t. So why are you perpetuation the lie now?
~~~~~
“5.Our workplaces will become restricted when it comes to turning down
a homosexual applicant because they will have to produce the burden of
proof.Even if that homosexual is not qualified he will have an advantage
in the hiring process. (this is not fair and equal treatment to the
rest of us)”
It is all ready illegal in Maine to discriminate based on sexual orientation. This law doesn’t change that either.
~~~~~
“6. Free speech for those of us opposed to homosexuality will be
curtailed once same-sex marriage is approved, it will not be long before
you will be fined or imprisoned for expressing any opposition to
homosexuality.”
Another lie. Hasn’t happened anywhere in the United States. Please post some examples from the United States GodisTrue. Please do. Maybe you will find the ones from Canada or the UK which can be proven false too.
~~~~~
“People with religious moral convictions will be considered worse than racists and their quoting the Biblical passages on homosexuality will be viewed as hate speech.”
Keep the lies coming GodisTrue. I am sure God is very proud of the lies you continue to speak in His name.
Again with this debunked garbage?
If you are worried about income taxes, you are standing in opposition of any civil marriage.
The “high costs associated among homosexuals” are high costs for anyone engaging in promiscuous behavior… and encouraging monogamous, stable relationships with civil marriage should be a goal there!
The rest of your points are completely unrelated to civil marriage, same sex or otherwise. Imprisoned for expressing opposition to homosexuality? Please show me anywhere in this nation where that happens… unless your idea of opposition is violence toward gays and lesbians.
Civil rights are here to protect everyone, not just people who fit what you like in life.
All bullet points are demonstrably false but nos. 4-6 are particularly henious.
Just had one of those door to door pollster’s stop by. Funny how they’re not very chatty after you tell them that you intend to vote NO!
What a coincidence!
Really…I doubt it. The only place I have seen anyone approaching people about SSM have been in very public places.
were they over 20? Everyone that has come to my door has been 20 or under, college students. Getting paid by Equality Maine, funded by Donald Sussman. I tell them to come back when they are married and have children, they will have matured by then, hopefully.
….
I am VERY conservative, and I support same sex marriage. Someone here convinced me of it shockingly. You have rights that you want/hold. Do you want them denied to you? Why deny someone else their right to persue happiness? Who cares what people do? Is it in anyway going to change your life?
No one is forcing YOU as a individual to recognize same sex marriage. You can hold your beliefe that its wrong, but its not your place to say its wrong for someone else to believe otherwise. People have the right to be happy. I dont think its anyone of our places to deny them that.
I doubt that you are conservative.
Perhaps you are a libertarian, and libertarians are left-wingers.
Bwahahahaha! You have no idea do you Son?
Odd…
I have never heard anyone reply to me in a debate with evil laughter.
But then again, you do want to elevate sodomy to the level of marriage.
Is that what marriage means to you and the way you define it – sex? Do you ignore the fact that many, many married opposite-sex couples commonly practice sodomy in one form or another? I’ve been married almost 20 years and it’s based on love, commitment, respect, support – sex is I not the reason I married my wife.
Jack
zzzzzz
…
Equal rights.
Are you familiar with the ERA back in the 70’s. If women did not need equal rights, why do homosexuals? We all have equal rights, homosexuals, everyone as was discovered during the whole ERA push. Do not define yourself because of your sexual orientation. You have rights, just like everyone else.
And women still make only a fraction of what a man does for the same job with the same education and same work experience.
“We all have equal rights” but in your book some people are more equal than others.
zzzzzzzzz
Excellent. Charlie made an appropriate adjustment without allowing the PC Police to overtake this issue.
That is leadership defined. Well done, Charlie!
Once again Charlie’s performance was limp.
Merely heading off invalid opposition arguments at the pass.
Summers 1, Emrich and other misguided opponents 0. Should help eliminate the opposition’s previous invalid arguments about “presecution” of and lawsuits against churches that won’t perform SSMs.
A better question would be “Do you believe in “Gay – Homosexual – Unidentified Flying Object -Pogo The Clown Marriages?”
The term “same sex marriage” is a theoretical absurdity because it implicitly denies what it explicitly affirms.
Others call it an oxymoron.
It is the final and absolute proof that a society has gone mad.
Have you been reading the headlines lately?
Do you need more proof that our society is totally dysfunctional?
Violent crime is actually lower now than it was in the 1980’s.
Offering all Maine families the ability to protect themselves with civil marriage is absolutely the right thing to do. I don’t know why you are so obsessed with hating homosexuals, but your lies tell us more about your lack of character than anything. It certainly does not invalidate our legitimate need for civil marriage.
Evert time I read his screen name “Son of Sam” comes to mind. A heterosexual murderer that killed because his neighbors demonic possessed dog told him to.
When people learn about the movie “The Changeling” and the WINEVILLE CHICKEN COOP murders, that will be the end of “gay” marriage forever.
If homosexuality is normal, why are 63% of serial killers homosexuals?
Not every homosexual is a serial killer, but 63% of serial killers are homosexuals.
Pedophilia is not normal. Murder is not normal. A mother that participates in murder, incest and pedophilia is not normal.
That is the synopses of the Wineville Chicken Coop murders.
They were committed by a pedophile. Added and abetted by his mother (who also committed incest).
Pedophilia is illegal.
Murder is illegal.
Incest is illegal.
For the benefit of the public —
You have ignored my question.
Please explain why a disproportionate number of serial killers are homosexuals: Gordon Northcott; John Wayne Gacy; Juan Corona; Ted Bundy; Charles Manson.
Gordon Northcott – sexually abused by all members of his family. Was a pedophile and was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of three children. His mother was also convicted of the same crime.
John Wayne Gacy – abused by his parents and molested by a family member (incest and pedophilia). He was physically abused by his father on multiple occasion. There is much more to his story but the details are pretty sick.
Juan Corona – zero evidence in anything I have read that he sexually abused anyone prior to murdering them. But there is plenty of evidence that he as a paranoid schizophrenic.
Ted Bundy – hmmm…a serial rapist, murderer that engaged in necrophilia with his victims that where all WOMEN. He was even married one time.
Charles Manson – sexually abused as a child while in state custody. No evidence that he was a homosexual and interestingly enough he took no direct part in the murders he was convicted of. He was convicted as a co-conspirator which made him as guilty as the ones that committed the murders.
So let’s review the box score.
Homosexual – 0
Pedophiles – 2
Heterosexual Serial Murderer – 1
Paranoid Schizophrenic – 1
Heterosexual Co-Conspirator – 1
Common theme throughout research. Abused as children by parents and/or family members.
You have willfully misstated the facts.
It is beyond dispute that John Wayne Gacy, Juan Corona, and Gordon Northcott were homosexuals.
Between the three, they killed almost 150 male victims; yet you are claiming they were not homosexuals.
Are you asking us to believe they were straight?
Ted Bundy and Charles Manson were bisexual. You have deliberately omitted the fact that the sexual abuse in the case of Charles Manson was homosexual.
Now, please answer the question clearly and directly, without an ad hominem attack.
Why are a disproportionate number of serial killers homosexuals?
1. No one can argue with someone who can make up their own facts.
2. Homosexuality and pedophilia are different, a fact that you don’t seem to get.
3. Ted Bundy targeted women. By your logic, he was heterosexual.
4. Lawrence Bittaker and Roy Norris, Terry Blair, Ricardo Caputo, Harvey Carignan, David Carpenter, Charles Albright, Rodney Alcala, Benjamin Atkins, and the Hillside Strangler were all heterosexual serial killers, and this is just a small number of them. So I ask you, why are a disproportionate number of serial killers heterosexual?
Yes, facts are important.
And it is a fact that while homosexuals are approximately 2% of the population, they commit the majority of serial killings.
This can be easily verified online.
Or one can rely on common sense.
John Wayne Gacy, Juan Corona, and Gordon Northcott were infamous because of the large number of victims.
The cases you mentioned were less well known.
And in those cases which did not involve a homosexual perpetrator, the perpetrator was bisexual, or a victim of homosexual abuse, as in the case of Charles Manson.
Granted there are heterosexuals killers, but that does not answer the question.
Why are a DISPROPORTIONATE number of serial killers homosexuals?
Please answer the question.
The answer is they don’t. You haven’t provided one single link or document that proves what you say is true. You post your opinion and it remains your opinion until you provide the documentation that shows otherwise.
So time to post the source of your “facts”.
I just LOVE that Angelina Jolie!!!
Why are a DISPROPORTIONATE number of spouse killers heterosexual?
Is it related to the fact that one out of three homosexuals practice sadomasochism?
And his “fact” comes from where?
Care to provide sources to back your claims up Son? Or are we just to take you at your word.
Most of the criminals you cite aren’t homosexuals.
Serial killers prey on people who are marginalized by society, because they are easier prey.
Kind of like how your twisted hatred of gays and lesbians leads you to spout such libelous rhetoric at every opportunity.
and right now, so is SS Marriage
And with no scientific, or legal reason, other than “We don’t like it”. Pedophilia is illegal because it can be shown how it negativly impacts the victim. Murder is illegal because it can be shown how it negativly impacts the victim. How does same sex marriage negativly impact the people participating in the marriage?
And if it were legal we wouldn’t be having these discussions.
Yes, we get it. You despise homosexuals, and you’ll spread outright lies and misinformation at every opportunity.
As everyone can clearly see, that is not an answer to my question.
Again, why are 63% of serial killers homosexuals?
Won’t the answer shed light on the advisability of “gay” marriage?
Why do you continue to lie about this?
85% of religious conservatives against same sex marriage like to eat puppies. See, I can make up statictics too.
It appears that there is still an issue with the wording in that homosexuality is being utilized in the same sentence with marriage. The fact that Mainers are being forced to vote on this debacle again is frustrating, and wrought with the dangerous implication that marriage is a devalued compact that recognizes perversion as one of its core precepts. The key issues behind the homosexual movement is an unnatural desire to to coerce Mainers into recognizing homosexuality as a matter of law in order to afford protection of their chosen perversions, while destroying the family and the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman. Like adultery, pedophilia and thievery, homosexuality is based on a decision to pursue a course of action or a lifestyle that is reprehensible and contrary to all things that are good and natural. And when young children are involved then there are serious consequences that will impact the future of this country for the worst. This is where this issue is going… and it will be a sad day in history if Mainers don’t recognize what really is at stake.
“It appears that there is still an issue with the wording in that homosexuality is being utilized in the same sentence with marriage.”
The question has to reflect the petition as a matter of law. What would your version be Queq?
~~~~~
“The key issues behind the homosexual movement is an unnatural desire to to coerce Mainers into recognizing homosexuality as a matter of law in order to afford protection of their chosen perversions, while destroying the family and the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman.”
News Flash – homosexuality is legal. Has been for a very long time as a matter of law. In Maine you cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation. And the people “destroying the family and the sanctity of marriage” are the ones divorcing (50+% of marriages end in divorce). That horse left the gate long before SSM came up. Why aren’t you demanding an end to divorce or stricter laws regulating divorce (isn’t Maine a “no fault divorce” state)?
~~~~~
“Like adultery, pedophilia and thievery, homosexuality is based on a decision to pursue a course of action or a lifestyle that is reprehensible and contrary to all things that are good and natural.”
Adultery is not illegal. Pedophilia is illegal. Thievery is illegal. Homosexuality is not illegal.
~~~~~
“And when young children are involved then there are serious consequences that will impact the future of this country for the worst.”
And statistically children that grow up in a home with divorced parents are much more likely to have their marriage end in divorce too. Why aren’t your calling for a revamp of divorce laws to make it more difficult for couples to divorce? Why aren’t you doing that “for the CHILDREN”?
~~~~~
“This is where this issue is going… and it will be a sad day in history if Mainers don’t recognize what really is at stake.”
There are so many greater issues facing the American family that does it real harm and you choose this “hill to die on”?
Blindness invariably enables a jaundiced view on all things as truth is suppressed and rationalized away in unrelated snippets of defiance.Where or when I die is of little concern, so long as the deception is exposed for what it is.
So why are you so blind to the impact of divorce on marriage and the children from those marriages?
There is nothing perverted about two people blessed enough in this life to find each other as supportive, lifelong partners.
The fact that you equate treating others equally under our law with thievery, pedophilia and adultery is the true perversion here. Your obsessions are pretty dark and twisted.
reword it all you like, the answer is still “NO”
Why? Do you define your own value by your ability to oppose the rights of others?
Really….BDN has published several articles about their door to door campaign and all the minds they are changing so it shouldn’t have been that surprising to you.
Didn’t notice it at the time, but you are right. They were quite young and most likely a college student. Probably why they lacked basic debating skills.
can not wait for this to pass so we can close all those mean old business’s with any values.Then change the name of this state to Penn State.
Good one.
You actually collected less than 97, 000 of which 11,000 were declared to be invalid. Under a revised law you would have been required to collect over 160,000.
Mainers,
It’s up to each of us now to make our individual decisions in the booth.
The proponents of this initiative have been aggressive and loud but there are plenty of us who disagree with them. This election will not be not exclusively “all about them” but rather inclusively “all about us” as well. We will have the right to express our disagreement this November based upon what we have always understood as the definition of the institution designed to protect women and children and to incubate respect and responsibility for the rules of Freedom. We know the definition of “Marriage” as the union of one man and one woman and as the institution which sets the expectations that we will invoke and practice power higher than our own. Re-definition of the word “Marriage” is impossible for we know what it means despite our human failures.
We need to express our beliefs in November with a clear, guilt free “No”.
Civil marriage has been seen to benefits the lives of gays and lesbians in every state that has extended it to them.
We are not re-defining a word, we are seeking to protect the lifelong, committed relationships we enter into.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and yes you can vote your opinion in this election come November— that is your right. I do hope that most Mainers will see that civil marriage for same-sex couples will help more Maine families protect the lives they build together, and the children they raise together.
It’s clear that eventually we will gain access to civil marriage here in Maine. I hope it is this year, but if not it will be in the coming years. It has been clear-cut that whenever civil marriage is scrutinized against our Constitution, courts have found no reason to continue discriminating against gays and lesbians.
Maybe between now and November you can take some time to listen to the sincere couples in Maine who are seeking civil marriage— it’s harder to oppose the rights of others with a clear conscience when you actually know the people you are affecting.
“Question 1 on the Nov. 6 ballot will read: “Do you want to allow the State of Maine to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples?””
**************************************
Are you socially generous enough to concede that traditional Mainers just might take offense at the co-option of the term “Marriage” and that a “Yes” vote would violate their belief system and make them complicit in enacting a state law contrary to those same beliefs… as voting Mainers?
I have yet to meet anyone who is truly only hung up on the use of the word Marriage.
Besides, we use the word marriage for other things already. The marriage wall of a modular home, the marriage of two ideas, etc.
We’ll find out in November how many people are “hung up on the word “Marriage””.
I heartily endorse the suggestion made here by MountainMan.
If Maine is the first state to vote in sodomy as “marriage” then we ought to change the name of Maine to “Penn State” and replace the statue of Paul Bunyan with a statue of Jerry Sandusky.
Spread the word.
Well you should be right at home then.
actually, when the equal rights law passes this fall, some would feel much more comfortable in the deep south, enjoy your trip
To anewvoice: Marriage has been redefined plenty of times in our history. Marraige used to be between a white man and a white woman only. Then we redefined it as being between a man and a woman of the same race. Then we redefined it again to mean a man and a woman. Soon, we as a country will define it as two legally consenting individuals. As for it being about you also, I’m going to assume you are straight. How does this law impact you? Will your marriage crumble, assuming you are married, if it passes? If it does not impact you in any way, then why go against it? If it passes, thousands of same sex couples will be able to get the state recognition of their relationship that they deserve and nothing will happen to you. You have a right to your opinion, but you do not have the right to deny your fellow Americans their rights.
False ab initio.
The institution of marriage has not been redefined many times in our history.
Please state where marriage has been defined and codified as other than between man and woman.
Your movement is sustained by lies and deception.
Marriage was defined as “a white man and a white woman”, that definition changed. Marriage was defined as “a man and a woman of the same race”, that definition changed. Are you denying that interracial marriage used to be illegal?
The opinion I express here is consistent with all other posts I have submitted. All people should have the same material benefits and privileges regardless of relationship choice. Beyond that we have the responsibility to self-define within society as needed. Marriage is well defined and voting Mainers know the definition well, agree or not.
Define yourselves with fearless pride for all Mainers who agree with you…but “Marriage” is already defined. Respect of societal inclusion is earned based upon positive expression of self-definition.
So, your argument is “we’ve always done it this way”? Your same argument can be used to: ban interracial marriage, prevent women from voting, and keeiping slavery. To prevent same sex marriage, you need to show, with evidence, how it will negativly impact society. There are clear positive benefits to society. After one year of same sex marriage, NYC businesses alone brought in an additional $270 million solely for same sex marriage. The argument “we’ve always done it this way” is not good enough to deny American citizens their right to marriage.
You (plural) are free to attempt to persuade Mainers all you want but after all your digging you have hit bedrock.
So you have no counter argument?
Incorrect. However, you pre-judge so you can speak for me (Witness: “So, your argument is “we’ve always done it this way”?”) and then set up diversionary talking points away from the validity of my argument.
I don’t play by those rules. Honest respect goes a long way and we’ll know it when we read it.
In your previous comment, you did not present a counter argument, I was forced to think that you did not have one. The “talking points” were not diversionary. The reasoning behind the “always did it this way” argument is that if people follow that, then slavery would be legal, as “we always did it this way” and women would not be able to vote as “we always did it this way”. You are simply presenting the logical fallacy of an appeal to tradition. You have yet to demonstrate the societal benefit, with evidence, of preventing same sex couples from having their legal right to marriage.
Defenders of traditional marriage need to advocate for themselves in favor of preserving their understanding of societal structure just as proponents need to advocate for themselves.
I reiterate from my first post in this thread: “We will have the right to express our disagreement this November based upon what we have always understood as the definition of the institution designed to protect women and children and to incubate respect and responsibility for the rules of Freedom.”
That was my point and intended for all who agree with my opinion and as such was fair game for others who don’t. Your arguments were indeed diversionary.
You have your own work cut out for you.
i wonder about all the “defenders of marriage” how many divorces, how many affairs, how many fornicated outside the sanctity of marriage, how many may be behind on child support. and how they bleat about how they are defending “marriage”
the deal is this, if your marriage is so fragile that two people of the same sex getting married is going to destroy it, then perhaps you better start working on trying to save your marriage instead of posting bigoted inane comments.
Remember Bruce LaValle Davidson, who testified at the hearing on gay marriage that he and his partner were “married in the eyes of God?”
3 men + 4 drugs + 1 shotgun = gay marriage.
want some examples of hetero marriage, domestic violence in just this area or do you just want to continue to make foolish comments?
Please give us one example of someone who publicly advocated for traditional marriage after he shot and killed someone in a drugged-out orgy four days before.
We are waiting for your answer.
and you think that hasn’t happened? hahahaha , you are certainly deluded. and you can find your answer for yourself. just start doing searches
He’s not the least bit deluded. He is just repressing his own homosexual feelings and believes that by using the most extreme example he can find will confirm his masculinity in this eyes of his contemporaries.
Ted Haggard advocated for “traditional marriage” after a crystal meth binge with a male prostitute.
Ah, so Ted Haggard was a homosexual? Bisexual?
Do you have an example of straight person who shot and killed someone then testified on behalf of traditional marriage?
Traditional marriage has never had public hearings as no one has ever (and still isn’t) questioning it. No one is seeking to repeal “traditional” marriage so no one has ever needed to give testimony on its behalf,
So, because of one deviant gay man, no others should be allowed to marry? What about all those born-again, hooker-hiring, married TV evangelists who eventually get caught with their pants down, preaching the sanctity of straight marriage while defiling their own? Or married men who abuse or kill their wives? Your argument is very weak. I have been in a hetero-marriage for 31 years and am more offended by the staggering divorce rate in than by allowing homosexual couples to marry.
He latches onto these random and extreme cases as reasons why I can’t marry the man I love and ignores the situations that you list. There are so many points that we bring up that they will not rebut (how is SSM hurting people in the other states and countries, why is it okay for Schubert to meddle but not the facebook guy, why are gay deviants used as examples why SSM should not be legal but straight deviants are ignored).
It seems that someone who kills a man and then testifies four days later at a hearing is in a slightly different category.
The hypocrisy was substantially more egregious, was it not?
and you’re saying there has never been a situation like this in a hetero relationship? even you can’t believe that– looks like a little hetero DV with shooting going on in Hampden as we post
Marijuana, booze, a shotgun, a .22, and a .44.
Certainly, let’s hear your example of someone who publicly advocated for traditional marriage after having done this.
hey laddie- 99% of all dv cases are hetero– if you get married in a hetero ceremony, thats advocating in anyones book
and never a hetero dv case involving drugs?
look at a little news instead of simply assuming
saying this is any different that some hetero marriage situations is simply untrue
Remember all the photos of loving couples in New York, who after decades together in support and love were finally able to obtain civil marriage and the protections it conveys?
2 people + love and commitment = civil marriage
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, suggests that homophobes develop such anti-gay attitudes after repressing their own same-sex desires.“Individuals who identify as straight but in psychological tests show a strong attraction to the same sex may be threatened by gays and lesbians because homosexuals remind them of similar tendencies within themselves,” said Netta Weinstein, the study’s lead author, according to Science Daily.
Four experiments went into the study, each involving about 160 college students in the United States and Germany. Researchers measured students’ implicit and explicit sexual orientations by their responses in a split-second timed task, in which they were shown words and pictures on a computer screen and asked to label each as “gay” or “straight,” and gauged their reactions. They also answered questions about their upbringing and families, and filled out questionnaires to assess their homophobia.
In addition to showing that homophobic participants were attracted to members of the same sex, findings showed that homophobic attitudes were most common in those who had been raised by authoritarian parents.
if the shoe fits , wear it
btw- I’m a happily married 60 year old hetero grandfather, who doesn’t feel his marriage is threatened by anyone elses marriage
“I’m a happily married 60 year old hetero grandfather, who doesn’t feel his marriage is threatened by anyone elses marriage”
A round of applause! Some elders are that cool and intelligent.
….
….
..
Seems reasonably clear.
Opponents of same, sex, gender marriages, say they care about the sanctity of marriage. They may have convinced themselves this is the impetus for their vote and opinion. In actuality it is about punishment. The individuals that despise equality, champion inequality. They want to punish what they find disgusting or wrong. Some are bullies who know they can not be bullies. They must find another means to convey their plans of punishment. Some want to lord over those they find inferior by means of with holding what rights the “inferior” individual may possess. A dictator is defined as, “A person who tells people what to do in an autocratic way or who determines behavior in a particular sphere” (Online Dictionary). It is humoring to me that conservatives state liberals are trying to make a fascist government. They, the conservatives, will utilize the very elements they denounce, as fascist, in their fight to keep inequality within our government.
It is not a concern of mine to regulate what others do in their bedroom, how they hold hands, how they love. It should not be, it is insanity, to believe that I have control over who marries who. The very act of controlling others lives to whom they can marry does nothing, but belittles our values and our ideals. It is inane pettiness and simple mindedness that has no place in a land that is not, but will be and should be, equal for all.
Joseph Marquis
Ally of equal rights
Supporter of the Constitution
I find it funny that Many Republicans were prasing Sally Ride for all she has done, but find it acceptable to turn down her partner for her death benifits.
Call it what it is, people. You do not ‘support traditional marriage’ or whatever you want to call it – you are either anti-equal rights or pro-equal rights.
Times change as well as meanings of words.
To Ninelake: If there was conclusive evidence that proved that homosexuals lacked the mental capacity to consent, then yes, I would say that there is a valid argument. And yes, the DSM listed homosexuality as a mental illness. However, over time, through research, our understanding of sexual orientation changed, leading to the conclusion that it is not a mental illness. Once again, there are clear effects of child sexual abuse. Science will not just “change their mind”.
As for scientists saying children “consent” to crimes, that is not the case. When children are tried as adults, that means that they had the mental capacity to know right from wrong the same as an adult. That does not mean that they have the mental capacity to consent to sex with an adult.
As for your comment about “children do not have certain rights, so people do not have the right to marry a person of the same sex’ , there are facts to support the reasoning behind that decision. There are currently no factual reasons as to why same sex couples should be denied marraige.
my answer is NO
Why?
So, two questions: Has SSM in Mass, NH, NY, Canada, or anywhere else adversely affect society?
And….(since I never saw an answer to this question)-why does it appear to be okay for Mr. Frank Schubert to come into our state (AGAIN) to work on this issue to oppose SSM but it’s not okay for the Facebook guy from away to offer a matching pledge to support SSM? I really wonder why it seems bad for us but good for them….
Well, NYC lost $270 million after legalizing same sex marriage, oh wait, businesses in NYC actually made an additional $270 million dollars from same sex marriage alone.
Why Marriage Matters. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvJrmMK8Hl0&feature=youtube_gdata_player