AUGUSTA, Maine – Protect Marriage Maine announced Wednesday that it has hired a married couple to serve as campaign director and grass-roots coordinator, according to a press release issued by the organization leading the opposition to a same-sex marriage referendum on the November ballot.
Matt Hutson will work as campaign director and his wife, Megan Hutson, will be the grass-roots coordinator.
Maine voters will be asked on Nov 6: “Do you want to allow the state of Maine to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples?”
“Megan and I believe strongly in the sanctity of marriage and are thrilled to work with Protect Marriage Maine,” said Matt Hutson in the press release. “If the initiative on the November ballot passes, marriage will be redefined for everyone and will be the only legal definition of marriage for anyone in Maine. We will work tirelessly to protect traditional marriage for current and future generations of Mainers.”
He has worked on campaigns for Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum. He recently served as the campaign manager during Bruce Poliquin’s U.S. Senate bid.
“Matt and Megan are a great addition to our team,” said Bob Emrich, chairman of Protect Marriage Maine. “They share our belief that traditional marriage clearly benefits society, and are strongly committed to protecting marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”
Protect Marriage Maine is a bipartisan statewide grass-roots coalition of individuals, organizations and pastors, including people of various faith backgrounds as well as those with no faith tradition, who believe that society is best served by preserving marriage as the union of one man and one woman, according to the press release.
The couple will work out of campaign headquarters of Protect Marriage Maine at the Christian Civic League of Maine’s office a block from the State House in Augusta.
Just right!
Just plain wrong. It’s none of our business whom others love, and want to marry. Whether they be hetero, or homosexual, as along as they a adult.
Equality Maine needs to stop lying to the public by calling it Economic Stimulus , Job Creation . Which Maine Economists including liberal ones say its not truthful. That this program will be another social welfare program that Maine Taxpayers will be on the hook for. They also need to come out and start admitting to Mainers that it won’t be taught in schools which is another lie of theirs. Because the Maine Education Association (Teacher’s Union) already is on record they intend to raise money for them. With the head of the teacher’s union Chris Galgay says it will be taught in schools. I voted No and was proud of it in 2009 and will do so in 2012. We need to focus on the real issues in Maine the economy, job creation , lower taxes. We need to get our infrastructure upgraded and modernized. We also need to focus on education with real reforms that boosts performance, test scores and puts focus on the classroom. While also focusing our dollars to fix the schools which the building are crumbling.
That is what Mainers really want.
Simmer down now and stop drinking all that right wing kool aid! All it does is get you riled up and then you won’t be able to sleep!
Enjoy your kool-aid.
btw a vote ‘no’ in 2009 would have meant you were in support of gay rights.
How will this cost taxpayers anything? How do you mean taught in schools? Kids are being raised in gay households already. If it isn’t at least acknowledged since it will be legal, any kids of these households will be bullied.
It’s terrible I tell you. First them gays will be gettin’ married. Then they will be wantin’ us to be eaten all that gay food. Imagine being made to eat gay ice cream or even worse eggs from them gay chickens. Next thing you know they will be makin’ us eat gay corn and strawberries. It will never end.
Gay and Lesbian folk eating straight food would be a recipe for disaster.
Read the RS article about kids in Bachmann’s district who were driven to suicide and the school did NOTHING until they were sued.
I’m currently in a state that allows SSM, and there has been numerous studies confirming that it has contributed millions to the economy…so if Maine wants to stay in the dark ages, we’ll take their cash for you!
Personally I will not give up my standards for money. I’ve been voting for more than three decades and have never based my vote solely on pocketbook issues. Nonetheless, I suspect those studies don’t really amount to much of anything. Promoters of SSM will do and say anything just to get people to vote for SSM. Maintaining SSM in Maine will help the economy is plain old silly.
Just like the anti-same sex marriage campaign will spread whatever lies they want to enshrine their bigotry into law?
Yeah let’s not let a little thing like civil rights get in the way of important things right? How will two people of the same sex getting married either make our infrastructure better or worse? Do you really think that if gays get married that bridges won’t be maintained or roads won’t be paved? Good grief.
Yes i guess your right denying a portion of the population the same rights you enjoy isn’t a big issue. Ya we definitely don’t want our kids taught that they are good people no matter who they love. We need to make sure these kids hide their true selves so they can live their lives in fear and hatred. You are so right thanks for setting us all strait.(pun intended) /sarcasm.
What will be taught in schools? How to get married?
NY has already gotten a $275M boost to their economy due to SSM.Move to MS or some other 19th century dump that lost the war.
equal rights and marriage is now a “social welfare program”?
Thank you for your comment. It’s hard to speak out for what you believe, only to be called names and bullied by people. Funny thought if you were to call someone that is pro same sex marriage names… You would be in trouble right? If you were to bully them for their opinion you would be in trouble, right? Just sayin. If everybody wants to be treated equal we should all start the person looking back in the mirror. Again Thank you for your comment.
If marriage equality is legalized in Maine, let’s say 500 couples would get married in the state per year. Do you think they might use local businesses for their weddings? Say 50 people are invited on average to each wedding, some would probably travel to the state and need lodging. As a small business owner who owns and rents cottages on the coast, I might have 3 extra weeks booked in my cottages: that would be between $3000-4500 extra rental income for me a year. I can now afford to have someone else paint one of my cottages, thus creating a job Of course there might be restaurant visits, some extra money for florists, rental halls, caterers, etc. that also benefit. Caterers hire staff per event, rental halls need security, florists might be able to hire a delivery person with the extra income that more weddings in the state would create. Please tell me where the lie is?
I never took marriage 101 in school, did you?
You want to stimulate the economy to create jobs? You might have to pay higher taxes to do that. In business, to expand, you have to raise revenues….the state needs to do the same sometimes…it’s how successful enterprises are run.
thanks for reading
well that’s nice to see, hat’s off to you both. let’s hope the tradition goes on as it was intended..
Are you also a bible thumping b!&ot hiding behind your Religion? Or just a b!&ot?
Only bi-got I’m aware of today tried to shoot up the Family Research Council in DC. Maybe that’s what the B in LGBT stands for…
I was wrong about your comment. I apologize.
My bad…
“You think you could edit that so it’s proper English and makes sense?”
There…fixed it for you…
Mine was just fine. And just like your side we have radical extremist who are taking things to extreme. Did you think your side was the only one that had crazy extremist who spouted BS and acted irrationally?
Actually there is plenty of BS spouted here by both sides on this issue. Guess everyone is an extremist.
“Mine was just fine.” – which is, of course, why you edited it. ROFL!!
So instead of denouncing the hate crime perpetrated by one of yours, you roll out the moral equivalency argument. Catch any red herring lately?
I edited because I reread your comment and it made sense so I took mine down. It was an apology of sorts. I was wrong. For whatever reason it didn’t make sense the first time I read it. I apologize.
I was trying to relay that I don’t hold your side accountable
the actions of your more radical comrades.
And I want to wait till I hear why he went there with a gun before I comment on his actions. If for example he went there to have a “chat” with someone because this organization convinced his gay son or daughter that they are evil for being gay and they killed themselves then I don’t condemn him at all. I would do the very same thing. What does your precious bible say” An eye for and eye”?
And you never did answer the question. Do you oppose SSM because of your “religious beliefs” or are you just a Bi&ot?
That whole thing looks like a setup which is certainly something those people would do.Perkins will stop at nothing to forward his agenda among the stupid.I’m sure the fear and fundraising has already started.
Apparently, the expiration date ran out on the tinfoil you used to create that hat. You may want to update that…
It is a possibility…….how ever far fetched it is……stanger things have happened
history shows that denying equal rights will most likely provoke violence. How much violence occurred during the civil rights movement in the 60’s? Nobody condones it, but I can certainly understand the frustrations.
The GBLT community has suffered much violence at the hands of bigotry. I hope that this upsets you as much as the security guard being shot.
We’re all human, we are all equal, and we all have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This is what our country is all about.
Insanity. You love who you love. It’s just hateful bigotry, if you ask me.
Ashypoopoo, Wier, Wier Daddy, do you feel the same about marriage between 3 or more people or marriage between family members?
Give it up already @RecoveringDemocrat:disqus ! Find some new material!!!
If you can’t argue against gay marriage without bringing up polygamy or incest, you have no argument against gay marriage.
why are you so obsessed with incestuous relationships? If it helps your cause, you can marry your first cousin in Maine – or are you looking to marry your brother/sister? If that’s the case, perhaps you should try a petition to change the laws and get it on the ballot.
If you want to marry your brother/sister, please be careful when you procreate as your children will most likely end up with a birth defect.
Good point. There does some to be an unhealthy focus on incest for some posters. But animal breeders know it is not a good idea to breed too close to the same bloodline. I would hope that humans would know that.
Your perseveration makes me wish for a “Delete” button … this is a straw man and it’s time you let it die, along with any other perverted comments!
Yawn. Your false analogies are getting tedious, redundant, boring.
He kind of has that Marcus Bachman look to him. I would guess that, like Marcus Bachman, legal gay marriage could truly be a threat to his marriage.
Maybe he just wants the same for his kids that he’s had… Is that unusual??
How will SSM preclude that?
How would allowing same sex marriage mean anything different for his kids then what he has had. You make sound like if same sex marriage is allowed in Maine that it will some how force people who do not want to marry someone of the same sex to have to marry someone of the same sex
Going to be amusing if they produce a gay child.
What about his gay kids?
I am pretty sure that if same sex people get the right to marry, then his children will still have the right to marry (whether it is same sex or opposite sex)
Unless one of his kids turns out to be gay, right?
I don’t know about you, but I want better for my kids, not the same.
Define “better”.
“Better” = A society where ALL people are equal under the law. A Society where hatred and bigotry in the name of the bible has been wiped out. A society where a kid can feel safe and loved no matter his sexual orientation.
And how would same-sex marriage change that??? Allowing committed and loving couples to marry is in some way going to keep his children from having what he had?
glad i’m not the only one who thought that about his marriage
And to hear the Bachmann’s tell it,they “saved”23 girls from horrible fates.Um,yeah.
Until Michele looks up the other meaning of “beard.”
HA HA!Spot on as usual!
Poor, pitiful Michelle. I’m sure she meant they saved 23 girls from horrible “faiths.”
Just your friendly local political mercenaries, willing to say whatever you want if you pay them.
It boggles my mind that there are still people in 2012 who are so unenlightened and bigoted that something they don’t understand….and usually refuse to understand….think that a legal marriage between same gender couples somehow threatens their marriage. As Lewis Black suggested, do hetro couples think there are roving bands of homosexuals hovering around their homes waiting until it gets dark so they can burst into their living rooms and turn them into homosexuals? I feel very sad for the homosexuals in the families of people such as this who feel the need to pretend they are someone else because ‘Aunt Jane and Uncle Dick” would not know how to deal with the fact that every family has a homosexual….unfortunately homosexuals in families such as this are still forced to live miserable lives because someone else thinks they’re no quite human.
I do believe they want to do something I don’t like, Do I just ignore it???
Why is it your business why other people love and want to be with? It has zero effect on your life, or mine for that matter.
Mimi2kool, Can’t you make the same argument for marriage between 3 or more people or marriage between family members?
Can’t you state anything else besides the same statement over and over again? That is not the issue – the issue is marriage between two people that love one another and happen to be of the same sex. Big deal!! Who would make the same argument for marriage between 3 or more people or family members??? Come up with a different argument…
If you can’t argue against gay marriage without bringing up polygamy or incest, you have no argument against gay marriage.
As long as everyone is a consenting individual aware of the situation, then no, I don’t have a problem with it. It may not be what I would want for myself, but I don’t get to dictate how another person should live their life.
Nope.
No, you can’t. It is a ridiculous argument that opponets of SSM trot out again and again.It is like comparing apples and blue, they are not even in the same category. There is no law that I am aware of in regard to polygamy, and there are many laws and social taboos against incest, though that does not seem to stop it.
Are you trying to tell us that everyone does only things that you like?
Hey, there’s an idea!
I detest the thought of people eating liver, finding it repulsive. They are destroying what I believe to be good food and is not at all necessary. Do I accept it as something that doesn’t affect me or do I work to get the practice banned?
Make liverwurst.
Liver can’t be made any worst.
Your opinion, not mine.
Maybe that’s why you weren’t listed as co-author……
Yes, because agreeing with each other isn’t required for treating each other equally under the law.
Are they doing it to YOU, lot2say? If not, what is your problem? Live your own life and let others live theirs. Your behavior is what should concern you — leave others alone!
If they aren’t huring anyone, then yes, you ignore it. I don’t like it when people protest at funerals, but they have the legal right to do so, therefore, I ignore it.
Yes.
Whoopi Goldberg said it best. “If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t marry a gay person.”
When I was a social worker in Massachusetts, I had a lesbian teenage client on my caseload that lived with fundamentalist Christian relatives, who were unable to love her and accept her as is. She said to me, “Do they really think I chose this, to be hated by other people?” Sadly, they did, and it was necessary to help them making other living arrangements for this young woman. I find it sad that some of the most judgemental people in the world call themselves Christians. They seem to forget that Jesus told us to love our neighbor as ourselves, and to judge not, lest we be judged.
They will just use the bible to back up their bigotry. They do it all the time.
”
I find it sad that some of the most judgemental people in the world call themselves Christians. They seem to forget that Jesus told us to love our neighbor as ourselves, and to judge not, lest we be judged.”
Amen!!!
-An Atheist.
As if on Judgement Day, if the couple said they had taken in their teenage relative and loved her, Jesus would say, “Yeah, well, you shouldn’t have done that.”
O would he now. Sounds like you’d like to be perceived as good a judge as the Catholics think the Pope is.
If in fact they had loved her, they would have accepted her and loved her as is. They were unable and unwilling to do that, and in the meantime did much to shame her. I believed then and I believe now that Jesus loves all God’s children. If He does not discriminate, why should people who claim to follow him do so?
Very well put. I believes He loves all of God’s children and expects us to do the same. If He didn’t, why would one follow His faith?
“the fact that every family has a homosexual…”
Every family does not have a homosexual. More homosexual propaganda that every family has a closet homo lurking in it. I’m sure that you wish that people would believe that is true.
I’m sure there’s more than you would believe. Do you honestly think that with the narrow minded, homophobic bigots the family members are going to step and announce it with the horrible backlash they would likely receive?
Lose your naive blinders.
Extend the family far enough and the probability stands. I’m sure that mine does (did) but I never checked to be sure. So what? His business not mine.
Not bursting into the living room.The concern is the bursting into the classroom that is going on.
Then you shouldn’t worry about this November vote, because it has nothing to do with Maine school curriculum.
Maine’s school system is not run the same as that in other states. If you have concerns over what is taught in classrooms, you should get involved in your local school district— because there is no statewide curriculum set, it is done at the local level here.
Even Mark Mutty admitted that the ads they ran in 2009 that claimed “gay marriage will be taught in schools” was baseless misinformation.
Though frankly, homosexual sex should be covered in the classroom. It was in mine. If kids are going to do it, you might as well teach them how to do it safely.
Keeping the fact that homosexuality exists completely out of classrooms creates the same situation as did keeping sex out of the classrooms. Remember those days when young people were afraid to talk about sex? I do. I recall some young people I attended school with who had no idea why babies were born. Innocence and ignorance are not the same thing. Personally, I’d prefer that our young people not look upon homosexuality as a something dirty that needs to be swept under the rug; something that we pretend doesn’t exist, until that young person realizes one of their best friends is gay and then, because of pressure from peers and/or family forces that child to turn their back on that best friend. Would it not serve society in a more positive vein if our children are aware that same sex love is part of nature, just as is opposite gender love? Denying that something exists is not the same as it not existing.
Take heart in knowing it will eventually go to the supreme court and equality will win.
excellent post
I see the haters are out making their snideful remarks.
This article is not about Romney & Ryan.
I wonder if Matt is gay?
Me too!
Truly blessed in their own ignorance.
So, PMM had to import this couple, just like they import funding and previous “consultants”.
News to this admittedly charming couple. SSM is not a treat to the sancicty of marriage, not to yours, not in general.
Another post prompts me to ask, what are they getting paid? Any like minded Mainers ought to take umbrage for filling Maine jobs (uneccessary as they are) with out-of-staters.
Hey he worked for Santorum and we all know how that turned out. And Poliquin as well. So he has a history of being on the losing side in elections.
Just a note-I think you meant “threat”,not “treat”
I do not know why gay marriage is a threat in any way to heterosexual marriage. I believe in Live and Let Live. I lived in Massachusetts when gay marriage was legalized. The sky did not fall. In fact, I do not know of any instances where it affected anyone else’s marriage at all. Of all the facts there are about an individual, probably the least important is who they sleep with or who they want to sleep with. Unless we are talking about pedophiles. What consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes is not anyone else’s business but theirs. People who want to worry about other people’s morality would be better advised to take their own inventory.
Oh sure you say that now, but what if all that gayness somehow gets loose. You know it could leak out and cross the road and get into a straight family’s house and turn them all gay.
Don’t they call that the gay agenda?
Edit: My response is not to be taken seriously as there is no gay agenda.
the way I see it I don’t really give a crap. What SSM couples do does not affect me in the least. Wait, no I think it does. I bet that the percentage of gay couples on the public dole is a fraction of everyone else. Work hard,pay your taxes. Why should I care what consenting adults do? oh yeah. I don’t.
This entire thing is ridiculous. We have serious problems as a State and a Nation. Our kids are still getting killed and maimed in war, we have a federal budget that is out of control and all the politicians do is point fingers, we have people homeless and kids going hungry, our infrastructure is falling apart and we are worried about two people of the same sex falling in love. I keep hearing about the sanctity of marriage , 50% of which fail within the first few years. What difference does it really make who marries who. Will it change my lifve if two people of the same sex get married and move into my neighborhood? Why, if we are so worried about morals isn’t there more outcry about two unmarried people of opposite sex living together? My goodness have we lost our minds as a people?
Exactly, we have more important things to worry about than homosexuals. As much as the homosexuals put down marriage and the divorce rate, why would you want to be part of such a terrible thing? Why not just design your own form of union and show us how it’s done? What makes you think people are worried about morals?
I have been married to the same woman for over 36 years. That is what I chose to do. I didn’t need to get permission from anyone to marry the person I love. Why then should someone else be denied the right to marry the person they love? It is really none of your or my business who someone else marries.
Because America is about equality, not segregation.
Do you remember the story about Rosa Parks refusing to sit on the back of the bus? Black people did not think that riding on the same bus, but having to sit in the back, was equal. And they were right.
Two kinds of ‘marriage’ one for homosexual couples, one for heterosexual couples, is just like the back of the bus. It’s not what our Constitution stands for.
For me, the underlying issue is how many Americans don’t understand the Constitution. I am confident that eventually, the SCOTUS will make the only decision that they can make, that is in favor of marriage equality.
That still leaves our nation with a near majority of its citizens acting like the American Taliban, inflicting their moral outrage on its citizens.
:/
I firmly believe my rights are only as safe as my willingness to defend someone else’s rights. I can’t believe nearly half of our country doesn’t see it that way.
Thanks, STG. Religious Fervorites = the American Taliban. What will they want next — public flogging, stoning? … I am sure they can come up with plenty to deal with those who don’t ride on their bandwagon. Watching politicians pander to the religious right is enough for most of us!
right?
All excellent points STG.
thank you
have you ever watched Louis CK do his routine(s) on gay people? It’s on Netflix. not fit for the the workplace, but spot on + hilarious.
…who do they think they are “protecting” through this endeavor? They’re protecting people from loving each other? Honestly.
Legalizing Same Sex Marriage is not only the right thing to do – it is also an inevitability. My grandchildren will marvel that it was ever otherwise and I shall explain to them that there was a time prior to November of 2012 when people were more phobic and that resistance is almost always fear based in ignorance.
There is a thought that people who hate homosexuals are either actually gay themselves or afraid that they might be. Othewise, why would they care about other people’s sexual orientation? It would be irrelevant, not anything that would concern them.
More homosexual propaganda.
The “I know you are, but what am I?” childish response.
The research, published in the April 2012 issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, reveals the nuances of prejudices like homophobia, which can ultimately have dire consequences. [The 10 Most Destructive Human Behaviors]
“Sometimes people are threatened by gays and lesbians because they are fearing their own impulses, in a sense they ‘doth protest too much,'” Ryan told LiveScience. “In addition, it appears that sometimes those who would oppress others have been oppressed themselves, and we can have some compassion for them too, they may be unaccepting of others because they cannot be accepting of themselves.”
are you protesting too much?
That is, of course, liberal propaganda, a.k.a. “facts” and “reality”.
This is not propaganda but the result of research. And there are anecdotal examples as well. I had a couple of clients who had acquaintances who hated gays and turned out to be gay. I seem to recall at least one fundamentalist minister who was fairly well known, those his name escapes me now, who was found with a male prostitute.
Fear; a distressing emotion, something that causes feelings of dread or apprehension.
Disgust; to cause loathing or nausea, to offend, to cause extreme dislike or revulsion
Which sounds like the correct term to you?
It is heartening to see the tone of the comments changing for the better here in the BDN forums.
Straight bashing!
ddasfa
Actually, Jimmybobahole: it’s hate-bashing.
dude ? seriously if you LOVE someone you LOVE someone.
I bet that wife cheats on him, and he gets hookers every night, they are probably married for money or something because they obviously do not believe in love.
LOVE is LOVE, doesnt matter anything else. and if its religious, LOVE you cant fight, its a feeling you cant get rid of thats why when people die the lover feels hurt or if its wrong, and GOD has said many times, you love who you love and to follow your heart.
Then whats following the heart?
Its admitting and accepting you are in love and you will do what ever you can for that other person.
Marriage is a human made bond of love.
IN TODAYS WORLD, as of USA(countries differ but USA doesnt)
Marriage is for one thing only!
ONLY ONE THING
So the government know who you are with and they enjoy controlling that, and for taxes, and wills, and other law forms of controlling/knowing what citizens are doing.
EVEN SO:
people feel to marry for love and make the bond complete in their own eyes to reassure them of being complete. YOU MARRY YOU LOVE & THAT SHOULD BE THE ONLY REASON TO MARRY.
LOVE IS LOVE AND YOU CANT FORCE LOVE ON SOMEONE NOW UNFORCE IT ON SOMEONE IT IS JUST THERE, DON’T LET PEOPLE WHO ARE BEING SELFISH STOP SOMEONES LOVE THAT THEY CANNOT CONTROL.
LET THE LOVE BE, LET GAY MARRIAGE BE, LOVERS CAN MARRY IF THEY ARE IN LOVE
VOTE FOR GAY MARRIAGE
VOTE FOR GAY MARRIAGE
VOTE FOR GAY MARRIAGE
VOTE FOR GAY MARRIAGE
VOTE FOR GAY MARRIAGE
VOTE FOR GAY MARRIAGE
VOTE FOR GAY MARRIAGE
VOTE FOR GAY MARRIAGE
VOTE FOR GAY MARRIAGE
vote for LLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOVVVVVVVVVVEEEEEEE
All you need is love, love. Love is all you needAll you need is love, love. Love is all you needAll you need is love, love. Love is all you needAll you need is love, love. Love is all you needAll you need is love, love. Love is all you needAll you need is love, love. Love is all you needAll you need is love, love. Love is all you needAll you need is love, love. Love is all you needAll you need is love, love. Love is all you needAll you need is love, love. Love is all you need -The Beatles
My Goodness love child you really love love and those who love love will love giving you love for showing yours. ‘Love you………
SICKO!!!!!!!!
Poe’s Law.
Are they from Maine at all? It does not say in the article, but what little information is provided would lead me to believe they are not. “Traditional marriage” is a construct of 1950’s culture. For most of history marriage was something for the privileged few, and intended only to protect assets. It had nothing to do with love.
And tell me, how does two people being in a loving, committed, long-term relationship effect your marriage in any way?
Corrections: YOU are intolerant, homosexual women CAN give birth, and a happy home depends on the QUALITY (not quantity or gender) of parenting. Your post is an unwarranted attack on homosexual men.
Can you say the same to the hateful comments made about this couple in the article?
honestly, it doesnt matter if you are straight, gay, or lesbian. those are labels designed to grasp/understand for control. LOVE IS LOVE
Love can happen anytime with anyone.
I dont believe people are straight, you are not straight, they are not gay.
You just love who you love, and you have no right to take another life by telling them how to live it and who they must love because that is the most selfish thing to do, and if you believe in god then that is the worst sin you can make.
If there was no such thing as intelligence you would not be saying this, if you were raised differently its the same thing, dont let anything keep you low, accept the TRUTH and let love and lovers be.
its not you and you dont care so why bother? why mess up other peoples happy lives? why ruin something amazing as love? why care about a piece of paper that do anything to what you call a normal marriage? nothings going to change except economy growing stronger, less suicides, less people being scared, less people hating for no reason.
Hate is wrong, just like and love, or ignore.
Hate will drag you down and your life will be ruined and that my fellow human is your fault no one elses.
I assume you have heard the words ” gay bashing”.
Yup – and I also see a lot of religion bashing taking place too. Both sides need to stop acting like 2 year olds.
Love to all and to all a good love life.
but animals even know that it is wrong.
Then why do many animals engage in homosexual behavior?
i don’t know ,but i would think people would know better.i can’t imagine being a kid now growing up in a sick society like we live in.
Gladly! Hateful comments should not be made about anyone, including the couple mentioned in the article. Those commenters are missing the point(s). However, I will NOT go as far as to say the couple is any MORE worthy of attending a “real” church (whatever that means), having children, donating blood, or commanding respect simply because they’re heterosexual.
Unwarranted attack? Speaking the truth is not an attack. You are intolerent of the truth.
the truth is if you love some one, then you love some one, you cant control love, you cant force love, or unforce it, and you cant get rid of natural HUMAN feelings.
Research more about things then criticizing things you dont understand.
Except for the fact of taxes and laws for the government to watch over you and what you do, marriage is for one thing, strengthening a bond of love, saying you are the others and taking the ring as well as giving one so that you two are one and the same.
ONCE AGAIN all you need is love
You did not speak (type) the truth in your comment. Homosexuals are no more prone to contracting HIV/AIDS than heterosexuals. The “gay disease” idea is a thing of the past! Catch up, and stop making false statements based on fear.
CDC Report HIV?AIDS http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/fastfacts-msm-final508comp.pdf
HIV only affects gay men and drug users:
‘HIV is an equal opportunity virus. Newborn babies, women, seniors, teens and people of all races or nationalities can have HIV. The prevalence of the virus in different groups varies (as it does for other diseases), but it can affect anyone. Of HIV positive people worldwide, slightly more than half are women.’
http://www.aidshealth.org/learn-about-it.html/4/
I think you will find if you read the entire article and others like it, that the fastest growing and largest sector of HIV/AIDS afflicted is men who have sex with prostitutes and then go home and spread the disease to their wives and ultimately to their children.
/Chock one up for the heterosexuals, we’re taking marriage to an all time low.
Maybe no more prone than heterosexual drug addicts sharing needles, but that isn’t healthy behavior either. People tend to avoid unhealthy behavior as much as possible.
And that’s why there are condoms. Any kind of unprotected sex is unsafe. Period.
What truth? your comment was so full of holes it looked like swiss cheese
Just out of curiosity why are you against SSM? What is your reason?
Zero chimes in..
The happy faces of hatred.
Did I see these people in a production of Up_With_People or was it on a Frosted_Mini_Wheats box? Can’t quite place them. But boy, looking at their photo — sure is easy to envision deviant predilections for each of them, involving activities still illegal in several southern states. Me sure thinks they dost protest too much.
I think that they have a Phrenology book next to their bible.
That photo sure seems ripe fodder for an Internet meme.
Photoshoppers — get busy!
Segregation? Women unable to vote? This too will be a thing of the past. We will look back and marvel at how ignorant people can be.
Considering the voter suppression and Newt’s ideas about child janitors,don’t give them any more ideas.Welcome to the 15th century.
Marriage as defined in the bible and yes, they are all 100% factual. It is all in your bible for you to read.
Man + woman
Man + Wives + Concubines
Man + Woman + Woman’s property
Man + Woman + Woman + Woman
Man + Brother’s Widow
Rapist + His Victim
Male Solider + Prisoner of War
Male Slave + Female Slave
this comment needs about 100 more likes
Love this post!! The Bible-thumpers always pick and choose which parts fit their agenda best. You never see religious bigots rallying for men to marry the women they rape! They just sit back and pretend that part was never included in their story book.
Not to mention that the Bible has been heavily edited and destroyed over centuries.Look up Original Order Bible or the Lost Books.Very interesting especially as it relates to the roles of women.
Now, now, now…..we all know ‘those’ people just ignore (shhhhhhhh) those inconvenient bible tales…..especially when it is soooooo much easier to point their fingers at someone else and use that very same bible to condemn that other person……it’s hypocrisy in perfect form.
How does the bible pertain to the 2/3 of the population that are non Christian?
It doesn’t but don’t tell a Christian that.
A good Sci-fi/fantasy read.
They need to get stoned — per the Bible.
http://youtu.be/S1-ip47WYWc
Do real churches include synagogues, mosques, temples, televangelists, Nature, etc.?
Also, which churches are not real ones?
Really James? Where do you get your facts? Gay people have no more lack of a moral compass than anyone else. Gay people belong to all sorts of real churches. Gay people are allowed to give blood. Gay people can give birth, they’re called lesbians. Gay people are no more “prone” to contracting HIV/AIDS than the general population. Adopted children join a loving family, and the list goes on. I highly doubt if your comment will be flagged, for what reason? You have a right to your opinion. However, you do not have the right to decide for others.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/fastfacts-msm-final508comp.pdf
Are you serious with the HIV/AIDS comment?
Giving blood would be very irresponsible.
What’s irresponsible is acting like straight people are immune to the virus.
Irresponsible, dumb, and dangerous.
I agree with most of what you say, but the CDC would say that gay men are more likely to contract HIV/AIDS than the general population. This, of course, has nothing to do with whether or not gay marriage should be legal.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/Newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf
A biblically correct church cannot accept a homosexual as a new member until they become straight.
James, just how do churches go about figuring out which babies are gay and which are straight. Do they have some kind of machine for that like an MRI or an EKG?
Actually, 4mermainer, there is a new test currently in ecclesiastical development.
A newborn is placed in a quiet, neutral-color room in a Rectory: the officiant holds up in front of the child a teeny tiny steel-toed Carhartt boot in one hand, and a size -12 Christian Louboutin slingback in his other. If the infant reaches for the red sole — well, then they know: you can’t fake exquisite taste at that age; it’s just the way G-d made you.
Haha, awesome!
We all are born , we all will die on the same road to salvation.
Biblically correct church is an oxymoron. ‘Become straight’ you clearly have NO idea as to what you are talking about- try reading a real book….maybe a book with actual facts and scientific statistics re: sexual orientation. Let us all know when you ‘become’ gay. Amen.
James, gay and lesbian couples are not looking for a “biblically correct church” to accept them as members. Churches don’t issue civil marriage licenses, the state does. Couples have choices on who officiates their marriage ceremony and churches and clergy have the last word on who they will and will not officiate ceremonies for ….. nothing will change for them.
Yet our government is prohibited from such discrimination. Civil marriage rights for same sex couples is the right thing to do, so that all Maine families may protect the lives they build together, and the children they raise together.
Biblically correct churches cannot accept a homosexual as a member until they go straight.
Have you found a lot of people who are old enough to get married trying to join the Boy Scouts James?
shes hot.
there is definitely more than a 4 point difference between them. lol
Dear Gay Marriage Opponents,
It doesn’t affect you. It doesn’t affect me. The only reason I can even tell the difference between this world and a world where gays are free to marry each other is that my gay friends are angry and sad which $ucks. So please get over yourselves and find a real cause.
Thank you. -The Diz
What a nice ,happy couple. Just by being happy these two should pi** off most of the gay population who are always angry about not getting something somebody else has, or, they think they have. Matt and Megan, you go!
I guess you just do not get it. I will be happy in Novemebrr when they lose and we all have the same rights :)
Wrongo, Ricko. No one is denying anyone’s rights, because marriage refers to the union of one man and one woman.
Tell me, would you deny the right of two adult brothers to “marry”?
Actually you are. You are telling LGBT that they can’t marry the person they while you retain that right. And no two brothers cant marry because they are related just like a brother and sister can’t marry
Ricko – under Maine law I don’t have the right to marry a member of the same sex. This law is applied equally to heterosexuals and homosexuals. If equal treatment under the law is what you want, we have it now.
Kind of like Ford saying you can have the model T in any color as long as its black. But you have the right to marry the person that you wanted because that person was a Women, You did not have the right to marry the person you wanted because that person is a man. Not Equal.
mero818 – You’re wrong. I may ONLY marry the person I love IF that person is of the opposite sex. This restriction applies equally to heterosexuals and homosexuals.
I may ONLY marry the person I love IF that person is of the same race. This restriction applies equally to whites and blacks.
ugh
That is exactly what I said. You can get the color you want, only if its black. You basically just repeated what I said. In my saying just say person you love, and Marry.
not for long, it won’t.
Just like in the 50’s, everyone had the same right to marry someone of the same race, that’s equal right?
wrong. i keep hearing this BS excuse. Your side cant even admit that you are B!goted. You have the right to marry the person you LOVE and want to spend your life with. LGBT’s do not have that right.
The difference is that you get to marry who you want if you are heterosexual, and homosexual people do not. It is not equality under those conditions, not by any stretch of the imagination.
Marriage is a legal act, and a legal contract, as well as a religious ceremony.
I don’t think anyone would deny that a church should have the right to not perform same-sex marriages, if they chose not to. They shouldn’t have to.
But neither should the state tell two people who want a legal marriage that they can’t have one.
Yes, marriage is a legal act and a contract — it is not a religious ceremony unless it is performed in a church, but it has no legal standing with the state without a state-issued license. Churches are not able to perform a legal act without the issuance of a state license. Get religion out of all of these things — it has no legal standing and no business deciding how people can live their lives!
Last spring, a Federal judge ruled on a case of the survivor of a 30+ year relationship where the survivor had to pay over $350k inheritance tax on her partners money. The judge ruled that since the govt, didn’t allow them to marry, The IRS had to return all the money. That’s the kind of rights they are fighting for.
As far as wanting to marry your brother, dog etc.: That has always been a ludicrous and desperate argument that was long ago discredited as silliness.
its call the straw man argument and it used by demagogues often to stir up the pot and get people scared or mad. It is a very effective technique to mobilize your base. The liberals use it to espouse fear around guns, healthcare, and business laws. Republicans use it often for things like aborotion, gay marriage, healthcare, etc.
It’s also called “fearmongering”. Often used to do just what you said to people that don’t think things through for themselves, but rely an emotions instead.
Yes, you seem to very familiar with straw men, you deploy quite a few yourself.
who me? I avoid the straw man/slippery slope arguments whenever possible. I prefer to appeal to peoples reason and rationality in my rhetoric.
That tells all ! You know a person is twisted if he fights for the right to send more money in to the IRS, that’s just plain un-American !
Would you deny the right of two men to marry one woman?
Another example of the “ludicrous and desperate argument” I mentioned above. That wouldn’t be a loving couple, just treating women as chattel.
I guess you’re going to have to explain what exactly makes that argument “ludicrous and desperate”. Are you all of a sudden saying that that kind of marriage isn’t acceptable based on your perception of what a marriage is supposed to be? If an adult woman agrees to it, on what grounds would you deny it? Please don’t tell us it’s because it against the law because you’re probably aware that in Maine it’s also against the law for homosexuals to marry. Is it because youre a bigot? Do you hate all women that enjoy being viewed as chattel? Are you opposed to bisexuals marrying one of each sex to satisfy their particular mood that day or are you going to deny them true happiness? Just who the heck are you to decide what a loving marriage is supposed to consist of?
Please see my previous comments where I said that using the ludicrous and desperate argument of people asking if marrying your brother or dog would be allowed is just that.
Then I was asked if it was ok to marry his dog. He’s since been flagged and had about 6 (deserved) beat-down replies.
Then I was asked if 2 men could marry 1 woman. I said that was just more of the stupid arguments that I already railed against. I replied that that would not be a loving couple (2) consisting of any gender, and that that would be tantamount to the woman being nothing more than the men’s possession. The same thing with bisexuals: pick the one you love and marry him or her, as the situation calls for.
Is that clear enough, or should you read my other comments above and below (there are quite a few).
Actually, no. You avoided practically every question I asked of you. But that’s okay, I know you got yourself painted in a corner with no hope of escape.
Look! A marriage should consist of only two people in love, regardless of gender combination. Anybody asking about other combinations are using a ludicrous and desperate argument as fearmongering in an effort to slam SSM! I fully support SSM as long as it’s a loving couple! Your immediate response to me proves that you didn’t take the time to read my other posts as I asked, or you have the worst reading comprehension skills I’ve ever run across!!
Actually my reading and comprehension are doing quite well. Just answer my questions, one at a time if it makes it any easier for you. Why do you hate polygamists? Why would you deny the the right to multiple wife’s? Are you a bigot? Why should you get to determine how many people should be involved in a marriage between consenting adults? Why should bisexuals be limited to only one sex? Do you hate bisexuals? Are you employing fear mongering by limiting marriage to just two people?
TILT
I expected no less.
I’d say you’re either a troll or really thick.
You noticed that, huh? I’d rather believe the former; The latter would be too obvious a choice.
you seem to not understand the Constitutional issues at hand. The Constitution currently says two (heterosexual) people can marry, but denies that right to to (homosexual) people. Ergo, the way the law is written is discriminatory.
If polygamists want to sue for that right, let them.
Great answer.
No, you’ve just confused someone!
also no one is talking about polygamy here. Polygamy is already illegal and no one besides a small sect of mormons dispute that. Marriage is mainly a financial binding of two inividuals thats is how the government utilizes marriages. Taxes, insurances, custody of children, in some cases military service, employment, etc. are some of the many government functions that take into account your martial status. Some of those grant you exemptions or benefits some benefit the state…
If you look at it as a contract between two people they why don’t we make so many other fiscal contracts illegal between two people… loans… services… employment…
that is a lil straw man there for ya.
Looks like another one! I thought that you expressed yourself quite succinctly.
So, if marriage were were really so sacred, and did not change over time,
then how come the government is so involved in marriage,
and makes the rules regarding it, in the legislature ?
I distrust concepts that you have to accepted as being two different, contradictory, ways at once to make any sence.
You are an INTOLERANT person to deny consenting adults the right to marry!
At the same time??? YES…
Why?
Where is marraige defined as the union of a man and women? And incest and homosexuality are two different topics.
I fall in the small camp that thinks it is a slippery slope but am totally OK with it. Any two consenting adults should be able to legally wed. That civil bond has no effect on anything that goes on in the bedroom anyway.
He is gonna say the bible but what he is going to leave out is that the bible also says marriage is between: A man and his concubines, A Rapist and his victim, a man and his slave girl, a man and a any women her father pays off……I can go on. I just love how these people say that they are following the bible but they pick and choose which parts of the bible God REALLY wants them to follow and which parts are just outdated.
Under Maine statute [19-B MRSA §650(1)(A)] marriage is “The union of one man and one woman joined in traditional monogamous marriage.”
And how many men and women get divorced b/c one party can not stay monogamous?
I would be sure to deny YOU the right to procreate, if possible. The world has enough hate in it already.
That’s why the anti choice crowd is so frantic.They know they’re first to go.
Since that would be incest, (which is illegal, not to mention disqusting!) that question has no relation to gay marriage what-so-ever. Try and actually make a valid point next time.
Saying it’s “illegal and disgusting” is exactly the argument the bigots are making. Don’t fall into their way of thinking.
Oh that was so perfect! Are you going to deny any combination of consenting adults happiness because you find it disgusting? Please go on…..
The similarity between homosexual marriage and marriage between 3 or more people or between family members is that in each case consenting adults are denied the right to marry.
You may think these other cases are few, but does that make it okay to deny them the right to marry because there are only a few of them?
Also, you may feel these other cases are “disgusting,” but many feel the same about gay marriage.
This is not about incest, “two adult brothers” marrying.
And would you deny the right of an adult brother and sister to “marry”?
They just don’t get it…all they can think of is pushing rights..if not this then it will be something else..marriage is one man..one woman..if they get divorced..so what..its still one man one woman…
matrimony
Why limit marriage to 2 people? Would you deny 3 consenting adults the “right” to marry?
Why limit just one man and one women, why not one man and 2 women? You already allow one man and one women??? You argument fails. Plus the bible would force a rapist to marry his victim. Is this really were we want to get our definition of marriage?
As SingleTrackGirl said above if three or more people want to marry let them fight the law on those grounds. This is about equality for 2 consenting adults no matter what combination.
Marriage should refer to the union of two people who love each other. Every year the divorce rate increases and increases and increases, there is no “sanctity of marriage” when the average person has some 3 divorces under their belt and more sexual partners than fingers on two hands before they die.
Excellent!! IMPORTED hate and discontent from away!!! PAID bigots…..brought to you by the ‘pastor’ and his ridiculous minions- clearly a proud moment in god’s eyes.
Great credentials for the opposition.
This is news because?
If you don’t like gay marriage…don’t get one. Otherwise let people lead their own lives, they’re not hurting you.
Its hurting the people that are married into a special tradition already…. forcing your way into another groups beleifs is not cool. Like the jets deciding they want to be in the patriots huddle. Do your OWN thing for christ sake!
Hm. Isn’t that what the Christians are doing when they seek to deny others’ equal rights? By forcing their religious beliefs on people?
You are out of your mind if you think the word marriage can only be used by one group. You do not have a patent on the word.
“What I need is 10 people telling me what I need” Andy Capp 1975.
Why don’t Meg and Matt go back to their good Christian State from which they lived and stay there, Maine does not need them!!!! We can make up our own minds with out them, but I do have to wonder why they have to be imported to Maine for this election season?
I’m waiting for the people who SCREAMED about the pro SSM side getting matching out of state funds.Oh wait,now it’s different.
I did not say anything about out of state FUNDS, I said Maine people do not need these out of state people telling Maine people what to do in the election booth!!!! We can do without the out of staters telling us what to do.
True,but that’s a small distinction.ME is a small,cheap state in terms of media buying so plenty of Mormon and other hate dollars will come in here and go a long way.I’m confident Mainers will make the right choice and honor all people that live here and want to make their lives better.Proud supporter of MUM!
Some supporters for both sides of this issue cry foul when news comes of out of state money being used for the other side.
The truth is that the majority of funds for Mainers United For Marriage have come from individual Maine donors, and I’m proud to be a Mainer who is helping fund their effort. I don’t cry foul over where funds come from, but I do think it’s immoral for the National Organization for Marriage to violate Maine campaign laws by keeping their donations anonymous as they did in 2009.
Working out of the Christian Hate League building, no big surprise.
A very simple minded post with 83 likes.
^^a very simple minded post with no likes
Lousy judge.
Cute couple…of bigots.
If gay people want to be married, let them be married. Something about “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” rings a bell.
I -still- don’t understand how two people who love each other chosing to be married, same-sex or not, affects the sanctity of their marriage. *shakes head*
I guess I can only say, I hope they figure it out some day.
A happily married, heterosexual man, married to a wonderful heterosexual, Catholic woman…and we both support same-sex marriage.
Nice photo of Ken and Barbie. Their time would be better spent coordinating a bottle drive for the homeless.
The Homeless? Come on now….we all know that spending all this money on stopping same sex marriage is the priority….homelessness, poverty, food kitchens…..who cares about those silly things? We need to focus on stopping same sex marriage. Do you realize what will happen if same sex marriage passes? It will lead to earthquakes, hurricanes and locusts (or maybe it was bunnies.) I hear those tricky gays have a weather machine and are completely responsible for the drought going on in the Midwest not to mention they are known to control the tectonic plates and can cause earthquakes at any given moment.
a real church? get real the “real” churches accepting of ssm have been posted many time
enjoy it when there are equal rights for all and you have no one to feel superior to.
Faiths Allowing Same-Sex Marriages
United Church of Christ: The United Church of Christ was the first mainstream Christian church to fully support same-sex marriage and perform marriage ceremonies. Jewish: Reform Judaism embraces same-sex marriage and rabbis can perform ceremonies.Quaker: The willingness to perform gay marriages varies by meetinghouse, but there is some acceptance and performance of same-sex marriages among Quakers. Metropolitan Community ChurchUnitarian Universalist
Faiths Allowing Limited Same-Sex Marriage
Episcopal: In the Episcopal Church, priests are authorized to bless same-sex wedding ceremonies but not declare the marriage official or sign the marriage license. Episcopal priests in Eastern Massachusetts can fully marry same-sex couples without conditions.
Shame on them. Seeking to deny others the rights that they enjoy.
:/
This couple better have a really thick skin because the pro homosexual crowd will do everything in their power to destroy this couple. They better be ready for relentless harassment, name calling and delving into everything personal about them. As we have already witness recently the pro homosexual crowd is not as tolerant as they claim to be. They (pro homosexual marriage) are turning into the Bertha better than you crowd. The pro homosexual crowd hopefully be be exposed as the vicious feigns that they are. They pretend to be tolerant, but only tolerant to people who agree with them
You know letstry, this isn’t really about tolerance at all. Tolerance is a “nice to have” but not essential. What is essential are equal rights, civil rights, for all. The Congress of the United States ought to show a little intestinal fortitude and enforce civil rights for all Americans. They’ve done this in the past for gender, race, religion, and a host of other human traits that cumulatively define each American as unique. It is way past time to make all Americans equal and that MUST include the right to marry whomever you want. Frankly, as a personal comment, it is none of your gosh darn business who I or anyone else marries and I demand the same liberties and rights that you enjoy.
WatchdogME, I agree with you. However, the same arguement can be made for marriages of 3 or more and for marriages between related individuals. Are you ready to be equally tolerant of these “marriages” too?
Polygamy and incest are very separate issues. Neither are equal partnerships. How often do you hear of women having multiple husbands? There can also be very serious birth defects associated with incest, outside of basic perversion. You are not born to be with multiple spouses or with incestuous sexual attractions. It is like comparing apples to oranges.
For polygamy/polyandry, I honestly don’t have a problem with it, provided that everyone involved is a consenting adult who is aware of the situation. That being said, polygamy won’t be happening any time soon, as the current laws are not equiped to handle more than two people in a marriage. It’s not a good reason, but it is a realistic reason. For the incest issue, after getting past the “ick” factor, I can’t think of a reason to block two legally consenting individuals from marrying.
I believe in equal rights for All American citizens. I don’t believe that position can be interpreted to mean that I support incest, which is a medical threat to the offspring. However, personally I feel it is none of my business if my neighbor has 3 husbands/3 wives/or both. That is between them, not them and I or them and you.
You know RecoveringDem, we can always go back in time and find precedents that justify bigotry and inequality. People of different races could not marry, women couldn’t own property or vote, non-Christians had no freedom to participate in government, indenture or outright slavery was not only tolerated but it was legal! The list was endless. We cringe when this list is brought to our attention and for a good reason. Those situations were not only sub-human in nature but were in direct conflict with what most consider to be “the American way”. In my mind the goal as a species is to evolve, to become something better. We can be better as a species and as Americans when we guarantee that ALL Americans enjoy the same rights, when we are all equal in the eyes of the law. It’s past time to legalize same sex marriage. It is past time to enforce equality for all. The US Congress ought to step up to the plate, show some guts, and make this happen.
For what it’s worth, I support SSM but do not support polygamy or polyandry.
Watchdog – you and I are very much on the same page. However, you seem to want to avoid my question. If marriage is a basic civil right, how can that right be denied to individuals who believe marriage should be permitted to 3 or more consenting adults? It’s a fair question . . .
You didn’t read my post. The answer is there.
Nope, it can’t.
Don’t give me your nonsense about your right to marry who you want, what you really want is society to accept your homosexuality. Sorry watchdogME I will never accept homosexuality just as will never accept any aberrant sexual behavior.
We’re not asking you to…
you must have a pretty boring sex life then
Who said I was homosexual? Am I, am I not? Maybe I hate sex, maybe I’m bisexual, maybe I’m whatever. It doesn’t matter what I am letstry because IT IS NONE OF YOUR GOSH DARN BUSINESS WHO I CHOOSE TO SPEND MY TIME WITH OR IF I CHOOSE TO MARRY THAT PERSON!! I want equal rights! Can you hear me?
News flash, same sex couples couldn’t care less what you think of their relationship, as long as the get the same rights and benefits provided by the government.
Oh yes they do care, they don’t give a hoot about marriage. They will value it as much as heterosexuals couples do. They want acceptance and will see how homosexuals handle it when they realize must people think their pretty dysfunctional
I really cannot emphasize how much your opinion of my relationship with my boyfriend does not matter to me. I also cannot imagine the level of self importance and ego that leads you to think a same sex couple cares about your opinion.
. Most homosexuals are convinced the SCOTUS will decide this. If you truly believed it you would not be here trying to change people’s minds. Homosexuals want total acceptance of their lifestyle and will use any means of intimidation to achieve it.
Not necessarily trying to change anyone’s mind, just pointing out when someone is wrong and telling them why they are wrong.
Oh. I’ve yet to see you do that, must have missed it.
Well silly, that’s because you have a difficult time with facts and logic.
Two men on a wedding cake is any but logical….silly
Well, your lack of an imagination and basic comprehension skills is no excuse to deny other people their rights.
And the same goes for your “imagination” that has obviously run wild with lust…it does not give you the right to change marriage.
Just like those interracial couples whose “imaginations ran wiled with lust” dared try to “change marriage”.
A persons race is not immoral, lousy comparison that the homosexuals have played on our naive children. It been effective on them I must say and these same children are now voting age. Great tactic, but in the end when all is said and done you still lose.
A person can change their sexual orientation just as easily as a person can change their race. Also, just because you say something is immoral, doesn’t actually make it immoral.
We have that now. It’s called a civil union.
Psst, those aren’t equal to marriage.
What we really want is equal treatment under the law. Pretty simple.
For your own copy of the “gay agenda” please refer to this document:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html/
I hope your self-esteem survives gay marriage in Maine. It polls better and better every year. This is probably the year that gay marriage becomes legal.
And, if it does become legal (and I hope it does — although I am appalled that this is even going to a vote, since it is obviously a civil right)), you can bet that the haters are already gearing up for another ballot initiative to repeal it … any takers?
So don’t accept it. It’s going on anyway so banning SSM won’t make a shred of difference. Apparently, you’re among the crowd that says marriage is just for heterosexual procreation, nothing else.
Wrong. Every LGBT person that I know and count as friend could care less what you think of them as long as you keep your b!goted opinion to yourself.
Watchdog – You say marriage is a civil right. “It is way past time to make all Americans equal and that MUST include the right to marry whomever you want.” However, you’d withhold that right from individuals if their view of marriage is 3 or more. Do I have that correct?
You didn’t read my comment. The answer is there for all to see.
Same-sex couples better have a really thick skin because the homophobic/religious zealot crowd will do everything in their power to destroy these couples/families. They better be ready for relentless harassment, name calling and delving into everything personal about them. As we have already witnessed recently the homophobic/religious zealot crowd is not as tolerant as they claim to be. They (homophobes/religious zealots) are turning into the Bertha better than you crowd. The homophobes/religious zealot crowd hopefully be be exposed as the vicious feigns that they are. They pretend to be tolerant, but only tolerant to people who agree with them.
Wow the pro homosexual crowd BDN constant poster have wasted no time this morning.
The homophobic crowd seems to be in full-force this morning too, I see…
The homo fascists crowd you mean!
Oh really, which rights are we scary gays trying to take away from you?
No, your problem is you are in everyone’s face with your dysfunctional views.
Then stop trying to codify your bigoted, narrowminded, bacwkwards opinion into law, and then you won’t have to hear about it. Guess what? Gay people aren’t going away and we will continue to fight for the rights that are currently denied to us. If you’re tired of hearing about it, then get out of our way.
That was original! Duh!
He/or she was trying to make a point that obviously went right over your head. Use a stepladder next time
They should expect protesting outside of their office now that BDN released the location.
Supporters aren’t going to waste their time picketing their HQ.They have better outlets to put our energy into.
It has been said that oftentimes those most fierce in opposing gay marriage are very conflicted and worried about their own sexuality – methinks some straights protesteth much.
Maybe they really believe they’re on the path to righteousness in this campaign. Seems they are professionals at this sort of thing, so maybe they just do it for the money – that’s what real pros do, isn’t it?
yes, it is easy to fight against something when one is being paid to do it. They failed with Santorum, Poliquin, and Jindahl, so why not try this on for size…let’s hope they fail here too. I mean, in his prepared statement he opens with the fact that they believe in the sanctity of marriage, which should mean they fight against divorce and cheating spouses. Instead they go after a movement that only serves to strengthen the institution of marriage for everyone.
What? Heterosexuals running a campaign supporting traditional marriage?
DEVIANTS!
BDN…You’re showing your true “rainbow” colors here today by letting a lot of very personal comments about this couple, their looks, the reasons for their happiness, their alleged motives…stand here. Your own guidelines state ” no personal attacks “. This is a wonderful photo of an obviously happy couple joining an organization who stands for what they believe. And all these comments from those who are SO quick to call folks that oppose their views haters and bigots, ect…true colors do come shining through.
I find it funny that some are so quick to scream that they’re the victims, yet they’re the same ones who are comfortable using the law against those they disagree with.
Who’s screaming victim? There is a clear double standard here, that was the point. Sorry you didn’t get it.
Very well stated…..
Thanks Pab…I’m SO sick of all this…especially the double standards. Hope all is well with you and your family.
It is an election year. Publicity is all that matters. I am heartened by all the “likes” and funny comments in this section, though.
Many SSM supporters consistantly direct their vitriol and use words like “haters”, “bigots”, “knucledraggers”, “homophobes”, etc., etc. Most, but not all of the people I know are going to vote against ssm, and yet none of those names apply to any of the anti ssm people I know. The SSM supporters who use these words to describe traditional marriage supporters sure aren’t going to win any converts when you act like that.
And describing someone as less than equal and using the law against them because you disagree with them is perfectly acceptable behavior?
Why do you oppose allowing gay and lesbian couples access to the important and irreproducible benefits of civil marriage, then? Honest question.
Yes, your question is an honest question. Speaking only for myself, I will be casting my vote, which is the only power I have at my disposal, for traditional marriage because it’s what I believe in. I realize many others believe ssm is the way to go and they have every right to vote their conscience. If everyone was on the same side of this issue there would be no issue at all, but being what it is, we only have our vote. My original point was that calling people bigots and haters when it isn’t true is just wrong.
_____
Read this to understand why people call you a bigot for opposing marriage equality: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/08/02/if-you-oppose-marriage-equality-what-else-am-i-supposed-to-call-you/
She is a hottie. It must be her mutual homophobia that drew her to him cuz he is a goofy lookin dude.
I don’t think I would want to publicly put my name out there as being the one in charge of running the campaign opposing same sex marriage. I don’t agree with same sex marriage, but at the same time the pro same sex marriage people are ruthless and I wouldn’t want some of the hateful comments said about me that a lot of the pro same sex marriage people are going to be making about this couple. Here’s a hint though to the folks who are for same sex marriage, maybe if you ran a campaign about whatever perceived benefits you think you have for same sex marriage as opposed to running on destroying the reputations of those that are in disagreement of it, you might get people to listen. Nobody wants to vote for something in which people have used sleazy politics to get their message.
The destroyed reputations of those opposed to treating gays and lesbians equally is due to their own professional misconduct. It’s become a cliché to find these people engaged in secret homosexual affairs while they rail against gay rights in public.
Please point out where marriage equality advocates have engaged in sleazy politics to get our message across. You are actually thinking of how NOM and Mark Mutty conducted the 2009 campaign, engaging in deceptive and misleading tactics that they knew were baseless and wrong… but to them, the ends justified the means (not a very ethical mindset, is it?)
As for “whatever perceived benefits” civil marriage conveys, there are 13 categories of benefits and privileges extended by our government contingent on marital status. Here is a sampling:
Category 1: social security and related programs
This category includes the major federal health and welfare programs, particularly those considered entitlements, such as Social Security retirement and disability benefits, food stamps, welfare, and Medicare and Medicaid. Most of these laws are found in Title 42 of the United States Code, The Public Health and Welfare; food stamp legislation is in Title 7, Agriculture.
Category 2: veterans’ benefits
Veteran’s benefits, which are codified in Title 38 of the United States Code, including pensions, indemnity compensation for service-connected deaths, medical care, nursing home care, right to burial in veterans’ cemeteries, educational assistance, and housing. Husbands or wives of veterans have many rights and privileges by virtue of the marital relationship.
Category 3: taxation
The distinction between married and unmarried status is pervasive in federal tax law; this is one of the largest categories, with 179 provisions.
Category 4: federal civilian and military service benefits
This category includes laws dealing with current and retired federal officers and employees, members of the Armed Forces, elected officials, and judges, in which marital status is a factor. Typically these laws address the various health, leave, retirement, survivor, and insurance benefits provided by the United States to those in federal service and their families.
Category 5: employment benefits and related laws
Marital status comes into play in many different ways in federal laws relating to employment in the private sector. Most such laws appear in Title 29 of the United States Code, Labor. However, others are in Title 30, Mineral Lands and Mining; Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters; and Title 45, Railroads.
Category 6: immigration, naturalization, and aliens
This category includes laws governing the conditions under which noncitizens may enter and remain in the United States, be deported, or become citizens. Most are found in Title 8, Aliens and Nationality.
Category 7: Indians
The indigenous peoples of the United States have long had a special legal relationship with the federal government through treaties and laws that are classified to Title 25, Indians. Various laws set out the rights to tribal property of white men marrying Indian women, or of Indian women marrying white men, the evidence that is required, and the rights of children born of marriages between white men and Indian women.
Category 8: trade, commerce, and intellectual property
This category includes provisions concerning foreign or domestic business and commerce, from the following titles of the United States Code: Bankruptcy, Title 11; Banks and Banking, Title 12; Commerce and Trade, Title 15; Copyrights, Title 17; and Customs Duties, Title 19.
Category 9: financial disclosure and conflict of interest
Federal law imposes obligations on Members of Congress, employees or officers of the federal government, and members of the boards of directors of some government-related or government-chartered entities, to prevent actual or apparent conflicts of interest. These individuals are required to disclose publicly certain gifts, interests, and transactions. Many of these requirements, which are found in 16 different titles of the United States Code, apply also to the individual’s spouse.
Category 10: crimes and family violence
This category includes laws that implicate marriage in connection with criminal justice or family violence. The nature of these provisions varies greatly. Some deal with spouses as victims of crimes, others with spouses as perpetrators. These laws are found primarily in Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure, but some, dealing with crime prevention and family violence, are in Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare.
Category 11: loans, guarantees, and payments in agriculture
Under many federal loan programs, a spouse’s income, business interests, or assets are taken into account for purposes of determining a person’s eligibility to participate in the program. In other instances, marital status is a factor in determining the amount of federal assistance to which a person is entitled, or the repayment schedule.
Category 12: federal natural resources and related laws
Federal law gives special rights to spouses in connection with a variety of transactions involving federal lands and other federal property. These transactions include purchase and sale of land by the federal government and lease by the government of water and mineral rights.
Category 13: miscellaneous
This category comprises laws that do not fit readily in any of the other categories and that did not warrant a separate category. It is a heterogeneous mix of provisions from 14 titles of the United States Code.
Haha, and the conservative Chrisian right Wong is any better?! Hahahahahahaha.
They should have a Jewish couple start a campaign in Maine that is against the freedom of religion. It should ban all religions accept the Jewish one. I mean, I know this country is all about freedoms, but on important issues like marriage and religion we should all have to make the same “choice” and be identical.
Let them get married. Then they would be unhappy with the rest of the U.S. And oh, god’s not real
Marriage has always been the union between a man and a woman. The hatred and violence spewing on here is those “advocates” who want to undo thousands of years of tradition stemmed in a convenant relationship before God. Civil unions isn’t enough – some people want to persecute those who practice a lifestyle joined to their religious faith. Liberalism is the greatest form of narrowminded bigotry – they refuse to coexist with other views or religious practices. The world is turning upside down when you have to go out and DEFEND the value of marriage in our society. And people on here wonder what is wrong with America.
Marriage is a civil contract that doesn’t require your god.
Right, so go get one. Civil unions are readily available at your town office. Great point! Leave marriage out of it! If you don’t like God, you would think you wouldn’t want to call it marriage. After all, it is 1000’s of years of tradition seated in religion. If you don’t like religion, why would you fight so hard to join someones religious traditions? Just to destroy it? Hmmmm, maybe its not marriage that’s under attack, but religion.
You can have a legal MARRIAGE with out religon. What’s your name for that tradition? BRO
You do not hold exclusive rights to the word marriage.
People like you is what’s wrong with America.
Its people like him that founded America bro… you need to pick up a book.
Yes, and their forebears were burning “witches” at the stake during that process of founding America.
Your point? I can tell you mine… no one deserves to be insulted over their beliefs. Gay or not, religious or not.
….And no one deserves to be forced by others and their ‘beliefs’ to not be able to marry the person they love….because it’s no one’s business who anyone marries, gay or not, religious or not.
You don’t think it is insulting to be an American citizen and denied equal rights?
And what book would that be?
The state issuing Civil Marriage Licenses has NO bearing on your religious faith. You will not lose your right to worship or disagree ….. your chosen church will not be forced to marry any couple they choose not to. No one is attacking the “value of marriage” …. they are asking that the state extend to same gender couples the legal document that opposite-sex couples must get in order to be recognized in civil law.
They already do recognize… its called a civil union. If you don’t like that name, call it something else. Why impose on, and try and ruin everyone else’s traditions? Start your own. You can’t steal another companies logo or copyrighted name because you want it to be yours because its not fair they got it first. What a waste of time. Stop trying to devalue other peoples vows and traditions. GO START YOUR OWN!
If you don’t know what you’re talking about, don’t talk at all. There are NO civil unions in Maine. There are domestic partnerships and they don’t even offer a fractions of the legal rights and protections that marriage does.
Secondly, whenever there is a vote on civil unions, it gets voted down. So I’m going to call baloney on your claim “start your own.” Gay people have tried to start their “own” and it’s gets defeated by the rest of us.
So there’s your fight buddy. Go fight to make your own traditions. Go fight to expand domestic partnership! Right on, now your talking! It gets defeated because of this crap. Noone wants to be forced to do something by the government, or another small group of people.
It just proves you’re full of garbage. You say, why don’t they start their own thing? Well they’ve tried and it gets voted down. Either way it gets voted down.
Might as well go for full equality. Why not. And they’re going to get it this November. I can’t wait. I’m going to be so happy for them. You’ll be left crying in your Cherrios. Oh well.
Civil Unions are not offered nor recognized in the State of Maine or in most states. Civil Marriage is a legal contract. For opposite-sex couples, the civil marriage license as a legal contract falls under state reciprocity ….. no matter what state you are married in, that contract is recognized by all other states. Same gender couples that legally enter into Civil Marriage contracts in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Iowa, New York and Vermont are not. “Marriage” is not a copyrighted idea, logo or name.
There is absolutely not state in this country that REQUIRES anyone to include any type of ‘religion’ in order to become married. What is the only thing that is REQUIRED is a marriage license from the state…..without the marriage license you can stand around all day in a mosque, synagogue or church and have your marriage ‘blessed’ by Allah, Yahweh, the Easter bunny or tinker bell and it still won’t be LEGAL. The issue is about LEGAL equality under the law NOT religion.
You want to know what’s is wrong with America ? It’s people who go out of their way to force their beliefs and choices on other people. Same sex marriage supporters are not telling those who do not support same sex marriage they have to marry someone of the same sex, attend any same sex weddings, or even like same sex marriage- that being said those same people who do not support same sex marriage are the people attempting to FORCE fellow Americans (who happen to also be the same sex) and who want to get married to not be able to marry because of THEIR beliefs. There is a difference.
Are you REALLY worried about ‘traditional marriage?’ Then work on banning TRADITIONAL DIVORCE.
do you wear wanders when walking thru all that BS. Please enlighten us as to how allowing SSM will persecute you? Please enlighten us.
Here we go again… To @yahoo-DK2NSO2GYJSIRQOPYAXLKVEIA4:disqus , Jonathan Smith, and the rest of you religious bigots.
Please detail for us your rational legal argument against same-sex marriage. You know, one that will actually stand in court.
Your side has failed to do so at every turn. Let’s see what you got little guys… let’s see what you got.
Good Morning Tedlick. I have talked to several family members who are very religious and they are changing there minds this time. I do hope this passes, i am praying it will. Keep up the great work buddy
Apologies… I guess seeing this same old routine over and over about “gays can’t marry cuz god says this or that” gets to me.
There are many wonderful people of faith in America… and then there’s James and his ilk. It’s a shame really.
“there are many wonderful people of faith in America”
Let’s see. This coming from the one that frequently uses terms like spaghetti monster, invisible sky wizard, fairy tales, ramen…etc.
What hypocrisy!
Not at all… pointing out that the beliefs are (in my opinion) silly, doesn’t in any way take away from the fact that they are indeed good people.
Then, there are those like you as well… what a pity.
So what I think you’re saying is that there are good people that believe in silly things such as two people of the same sex wanting to get married. Got it!
That is incredible insensitive. The Flying Spaghetti Monster boiled for your sins. Show some respect.
I keep looking at the photo of them and the autumn background. Classic. I don’t know how this photo wasn’t included in this Olan Mills collection:
http://listoftheday.blogspot.com/2007/09/great-olan-mills-photos.html
An urgent message has gone out to the pro homosexual marriage militant to respond to BornHere2’s post. They are now breaking their fingers pressing “like”.
No way, Jose. As we’ve often cheered at games where our team has a lead, “Scoreboard, Scoreboard”). How many likes do you ave in comparison? (only 2 when I posted)
hypocrites…….. and the funny thing is they are probably going to get a divorce in the future remember the people who want to protect marriage in maine are the same ones who make up these statistics…50% OF ALL FIRST MAINE MARRIAGES END IN DIVORCE 60 % OF SECOND AND 73 OF THRIRD so if you think LGBT are going to hurt the institution well your crazy because the hetro’s have already dont that…its so sad to know that in 2012 we can still have bigeots….
Oh yes you do that is why the pro homosexual marriage crowd is knocking on our doors and seem to know an awful lot about us.
“If the initiative on the November ballot passes, marriage will be redefined for everyone and will be the only legal definition of marriage for anyone in Maine.”
This really isn’t true at all. No one’s marriage is going to be redefined— how can allowing ALL Maine families access to civil marriage change things for anyone who already has access to the 1,100+ benefits of civil marriage?
They make it sound like we are taking civil marriage rights away from people by expanding access to this important civil right, and that’s simply absurd.
I hope that most Mainers will join me this November and affirm that we want to treat all Maine citizens equally, and offer all Maine couples access to civil marriage, so they may protect the lives they build together, and the children they raise together.
Ummm Barb, you do know that SSM is LEGAL in Canada and many US states right? Or do you not get outside of Maine much?
Theat, see above. My understanding is that the problem with Chik-Fil-A is that they are discriminating against homosexuals based on that idea alone; that people have been fired and/or refused jobs because they didn’t feel the need to lie. “Traditional” marriage depends upon how far back in history one looks for a definition and to which culture one looks. I think we’ll find that marriage which is a contract between three entities (a man, a woman, and the govt) was created by the Romans in antiquity in order to ensure that males could obtain property right over females.
Such a lovely couple, it’s a shame they support such a vicious lot.
Is that what you’re calling her these days? Does she know that you are?
i wish there was a dislike button on this article…bull crap i say
Right below “Guidelines for posting” you will find what you’re looking for :)
So what I hear some of you saying is that it’s intolerance if they don’t agree with you but whatever you have to say is free speech.
The way our first amendment works— you are free to express your opinions, and we are free to respond to them.
The way our fourteenth amendment works— our government should not be allowed to set up benefits for some Americans without extending them equally to all Americans.
I am fine with people disagreeing with my life. I am not fine with people seeking to have our government discriminate against me.
When someone doesn’t agree with what the gay rights side says they are intolerant. When they don’t agree with what the other side is saying, they are using free speech. It works both ways folks and I, from the middle, see intolerance on both side of this issue.
Free speech =/= freedom from criticism. The anti-ssm side has a right to have a belief, the pro-ssm side also has a right to point out that those beliefs are intolerant and bigoted. How is the pro-ssm side trying to legally take away anyone’s rights?
Is it possible to legislatively create two, separate, types of marriage in Maine, each with benefits designed specifically for either same-sex marriage or one man-one woman marriage? If so, what would be the differences in the marriage benefits needed by the same-sex community and the one man-one woman community? Would there be support for legislation creating two types of marriage in Maine providing benefits specific to the same-sex community and the one man-one woman community?
Seperate but equal has been tried many times before and the Supreme Court always finds that seperate is inherently unequal.
A Yankee contract is not the same as a Red Sox contract and each team wears a different uniform. What’s the Supreme Court ruling pertaining to major league ball team contracts and uniforms? Marriage is a contract.
That’s a silly comparison. The state isn’t the one to dole out baseball contracts. It isn’t the one granting the right to have a baseball contract. You can’t block someone who is similarly situated from access to a right, even if you create an alternative that is supposedly equal. Yes Marriage is a contract, but its benefits are derived from the government.
Look up the case United States v. Virginia.
Since a same-sex marriage is not the same as a one man-one woman marriage, the government can decide that the two types are inherently different with different needs and can treat the two types of marriage differently.
How and why?
You aren’t required to procreate to get a marriage license, so you can’t use that as an argument. What else is there?
A same-sex marriage does not have the reproductive tools necessary to procreate within the marriage without assistance from outside of the marriage. The one man-one woman marriage has all of the reproductive tools to procreate but may need assistance from outside of the marriage in cases of dysfunctional body parts. The children living within the context of a same-sex marriage will have inherently different psychological needs as compared the psychological needs of children living within the context of a one man-one woman marriage – the needs and rights of children must never be ignored. The needs and rights of children are major, inherent, responsibilities of any type of marriage.
Neither do elderly couples or infirtile couples, yet they are still able to marry. As for the children argument, every reputable study has found that children raised by same sex parents do just as well as children raised by opposite sex parents, but don’t let those pesky little “facts” get in the way.
It doesn’t matter. You aren’t required to have children to marry. That’s why we let sterile people marry. That’s why we let post-menopausal women marry. We don’t even ask the question. You don’t get to create a new requirement that has never existed.
Secondly, your claims about psychological needs is bunk. All the studies show that gay parents are just as effective as raising children.
Again, this is about marriage rights. There is no requirement to procreate to get married.
So once again I ask you for a real example of how a gay couple and a straight couple are different in relation to marriage.
In practice, the same forces that come out in opposition to same sex marriage also oppose civil unions that convey the same benefits. Mitt Romney has explicitly stated he opposes civil unions that are the same as civil marriage, and NOM also fights just as hard against civil unions.
Besides, as another poster already pointed out, our US Supreme Court has found in the past that separate systems for different groups of Americans are inherently unequal.
Ya they tried that for the black community and we saw how that turned out.
I wonder how much they’re getting paid. Hope it’s worth it.
I am shocked that this couple would do this, i swear on my mommas name that i know them, but it could be another couple with the same names, but darn she looks so familiar.
Then fight for equal rights not special rights. Don’t change marriage , change the rest of the system !
It’s sad that you think abiding by our Constitution and treating all citizens equally under the law is “special rights”.
The truth is that the special rights are the 1,100+ benefits and privileges granted by our government contingent on marital status. There is no justifiable reason to discriminate against same sex couples for civil marriage.
Then go for civil unions and leave marriage alone. You’d find many supporters among us ” bigots ” !
Why should we “leave marriage alone”? You don’t own that term.
I am fine with having civil unions for all Americans, that would abide by our Constitution.
But having separate systems for different people is unconstitutional. We can’t set civil marriage for some and civil unions for others.
no tattoos on them..no bugged out eyes on the female..no pot jewelry symbols…no butts…no Mullet hairdo……. …bet they never even had a parole officer in their lives i bet their in-laws are not even related to one another
…………..not too may mainers are going to identify with them
To Douglas Scott Campbell: Silly, they aren’t intolerant for having a different opinion, they’re intolerant for trying to keep LGBT people as second class citizens.
Inequality currently exists in our state no matter which way you look at it. The heterosexualt population are allowed to marry and receive the protections and benefits that it offers. Homosexual couples are not afforded this right and therefore are faced with intolerance, judgement, and lack of protection as a couple. Marriage is a civil right. I was born this way, gay, why am I not allowed to marry the person that I love? Such a simple question. I am also a person who believes in God and Jesus and has a relationship with both, so leave he Bible out of this please, do not put me down using my God’s word, for he loved me and my life- for I am created in his image :)
To Maine2Florida: Another company own’s their logo or copyrighted name, you don’t own the term marriage.
Seriously. Oh, you want freedom of religion? Sorry, no. “Start your own.” What garbage.
NEWS FLASH… we already have freedom of religion. It’s ok. Everyone makes dumb comments on here. Don’t feel too bad.
No married couples do. They took that vow in the current definition of marriage.
Really now? Where in the ceremony do they trademark the term marriage? Unless of course, they don’t actually own the term and you are grasping at an argument…
They don’t trademark it. The law does. Everywhere in the ceremony are vows taken on the sanctity of marriage as for what it stands for in the eyes of law, and in eyes of God. Sooooo ya, trademarked not really, but law, yes.
Where in the law is it trademarked that marriage is owned by a particular group?
“Sooooo ya, trademarked not really, but law, yes. ” – That does not make any sense.
It wouldnt make sense to someone like you. Here, let me show you the law: “In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”
Oh, that’s cute, citing the law that has been found unconstitutional in 5 different cases. Hint hint, that is also not a trademark and does not give ownership.
Looks like ownership to me. And actually there is 7 states that have ruled in favor of gay marriage. Federal law still trumps it though… so 7 out of 50 isn’t enough to make it “unconstitutional”. Majority rules in making laws little fella… better start campaigning harder!
You misunderstand my post. 5 Federal Court cases have ruled that it is unconstitutional. If it is unconstitutional, then, in fact, majority does not rule.
So why the argument? If its not law then why are we all here? Hmmm I think you might be missing the entire point. If you want to change a law that effects everyone, then you best have the majority in favor of it. If not, well, obviously I don’t need to tell you- it aint gonna happen. If I was gay, I would be looking to find a way to keep myself and my mate happy, not to change everyone’s opinion and force them to agree to my lifestyle. I am sure gays don’t like straight people trying to force them to be straight.
Except it doesn’t “effect everyone”, just same sex couples. As far as why we are still having this debate is that the people who support DOMA still get to appeal the rulings, even though they will most likely lose. You keep missing the point, I don’t care what you think of my relationship. Why is it that the anti-ssm crowd thinks we care about their opinion of our relationship. The entire point is that if opposite sex couples get civil marriage, so should same sex couples.
” If I was gay, I would be looking to find a way to keep myself and my mate happy” – But you’re not, so don’t try to pretend what you would do just to support your argument. And what would make a lot of same sex couples happy, myself included, is to be treated equally under the law.
Narrow minded… “it only affects same sex couples”. That’s why you are losing this battle. Until you start realizing you can’t bully people into taking your position on the matter, you will never win. You want to take from one group, and give to another. No compromise. Again, if you would just accept the fact that a couple who has been married under a law and a premise for 60 years should not devalue their vows to support your agenda. Yes, that is how married couples (ones that I know) feel like. Devaluing the institution they have agreed on and are part of. You want to swoop in and take that away from them. No, it won’t directly or physically affect them, but it will devalue the special institution. Its not your right to take that from the people who believe in it. You want to ban the institution of marriage. No one is tryin to ban you… you have never been allowed to take part. Do your own thing. Its simple. Fight for a “gayriage” or a “sameiage”… get my drift? Thats ALL that everyone is upset about. You want to take from others to give to yourself. Not cool.
1. How does a same sex couple getting married affect you?
2. How does a same sex couple getting married “take from one group, and give to another”? I wasn’t aware that same sex couples getting married prevented opposite sex couples from getting married.
3. How do same sex couples getting married “devalue their vows”, but Brittany Spear’s drunken weekend Vegas wedding is fine?
4. How do I want to “ban the institution of marriage”?
5. “No one is tryin to ban you… you have never been allowed to take part. ” – False, same sex couples are allowed to marry in many other countries, and in some states. Therefore, they are allowed to take part.
6. You have yet to proved any compelling argument was to why same sex couples should have to settle for civil unions when heterosexual couples can get civil marriages.
I get it, I really do, you don’t like gay people, but you don’t want people to think you are a bigot. So, instead, you parade around this notion that separate but equal is ok in this situation to hide the simple fact that you dislike gay people and don’t want to see the government recognize their relationship as equal to a heterosexual relationship.
All that money to promote all that hatred. Seems a shame that two people from the most Peaceful State would choose to carry out a campaign of disrespect and hate. Makes you wonder what that conversation sounded like when they got the job offer. You’ve got to wonder about the people sending in money to support a bunch of haters. Do they give to homeless shelters, cancer curing campaigns, animal shelters, etc., first? I really can’t think of anyway that any gay person has ever effected my life negatively, and certainly their being marred has not affected my marriage. Sure wish we could put all that money and energy into something more positive.
One question for same-sex marriage supporters: How would this new law protect gay civil rights when ANYONE of the same sex (whether they are gay or not) will be able to get married if it were to pass?
Unlike with race, there is no classifiable minority as anyone can CLAIM to be gay, and there’d be no way to prove otherwise. So really, all this new law is about is allowing marriage to two people of the same gender- thereby making it a genderless institution with no mention of one’s self-identified sexual orientation.
I want my gay friends and neighbors to be able to live and love in peace. And voting in opposition to a same-sex marriage law that doesn’t even protect them specifically is not hate or bigotry- it’s common sense.
What?
By that same logic anyone can claim to be straight, there is no way of proving it. To get a marriage license you don’t have to prove you’ve been in the relationship for long or even that the two know each other.
Personally, I think you’re being dishonest with your motivations for voting against this. They want the right to marry and you’re going to vote against that. That has nothing to do with “protecting” them.
To all of you that are having such a hard time with this, its really very simple. Gays and lesbians can get civil unions in most states which is equal legal rights to marriage. So legally, everyone is treated fairly. Now, if you are gay, then go make your own traditions and start your own covenant. Make it special to YOU. No one wants to be forced to share their pie with someone they do not agree with. Stop trying to impede on someone else’s beliefs, traditions, and values. Start your own! Get your civil union (or call it what you want) and go do your OWN ceremonies to celebrate the union. By trying to force your way into others traditions is wrong. If I try and force my way into the honor society because its not fair that they get better jobs than me, I will be shot down unless I fit into their traditions and standards. Again, my point is start your own tradition.
As for everyone that is not gay. Get used to seeing it… in every state but Maine, it is in the open and its a lifestyle that is not going anywhere. You don’t have to like it, or condone it. You don’t have to teach your kids about it. Just ignore it if you can. I stand with you in protecting your traditions, and agree that no one should tell you what your marriage means, or change the definition of it after you have already taken your vows and partook in the long standing sanctity of marriage. Marriage is yours. It was and is a tradition of love and union between a man and a woman. Gays have those rights to enjoy as much as you, but it should be under their own traditions. Focus not on the sexual orientation, but instead the right to keep your traditions as yours. No one is trying to bulldog their way into free masons and screaming unfairness, so the same goes here.
False, the Defense of Marraige act prevents same sex couples from receiving any federal benefits from their marriage or civil union. Religious people do not own the term marriage, so they don’t get to dictate for the rest of the country what constitutes a marriage. If they want their church to only recognize heterosexual relationships, fine, as long as they keep that in their church and out of the law.
I agree… not up to church. So you start changing this long standing tradition for gays, then what? Next it will be people wanting to marry a dog, or bird… we will soon be a nation of weirdos protected under the law. Laws are there to uphold and enforce the values and traditions of our great nation. Start tearing those down, and we will be left with a cesspool of a country that will implode from within. Go ahead, take religion out of the debate. I am fine with that. You make laws and change ones for each little request, and you will soon have a country that is like a circus.
Let me simplify this for you. There is a rational basis for preventing people from marrying an animal/child/inanimate object. Those things cannot give legal consent. A same sex couple CAN give legal consent. You change the law when there is no rational basis for the law. There is no rational basis to prevent same sex couples from marrying, therefore the law should be changed. The law is not meant to legislate morality, the law is meant to protect a citizen’s rights, no matter how “weird” those citizens may be.
They did change the law for them already. Civil unions. If that is not adequate, then they should fight to expand on that. NOT impose on another groups tradition and laws. Seems simple to me. Everyone would be happy and in love. So why the instance on ruining marriage in the peoples eyes that took those vows in the traditional sense? Does no one care about their rights?
Except it’s not imposing on anyone’s traditions. A church can still refuse to recognize a same sex marriage, just like churches can still refuse to recognize interracial marriages. If knowing that somewhere, somehow, a same sex couples is married threatens someone else’s marriage, then they don’t have a very good marriage to begin with.
them ?
Yes them… gays. Did you not understand?
Maine has no civil unions.
lol, I love that you’re telling people to get their own traditions. Christianity then should take what they claim are their traditions and give them back to the Pagans that they stole them from and come up with something of their own.
FEAR
SCARY!!!
Did allowing women the right to vote lead to dogs or birds voting?
Fear based….sad
Fear based? HAHAHA! That’s your response? Whats sad is that you see my point, agree with it, but because your are so dedicated to one side or the other you cant accept it! Stick to your (if they were actually yours) beliefs. I made a point for both sides… you only see one side. THATS sad.
OH I am sorry
People should be classified by their sexual orientation instead of just people = FEAR
Nope. Not people… marriage. You are twisted in your rhetoric= STUPIDITY
Perhaps you and your awesome past0r could pray for me to stop seeing people as people.
Just maybe I will get to the tier you and this godly individual are on.
I am not gay, not married, and not a very good christian, sooooo your argument is trash. I am speaking from a very objectionable position. I have noone to influence me. I have gay friends, I have married friends. My point is only a simple one to end the whole debate. Go build your own institution and everyone would be fine. Why keep pressuring everyone into something they disagree with?
This is factually untrue.
There are no states in our nation where civil unions convey the 1,100+ benefits and privileges that our government offers based on marital status.
Even something as basic as Social Security survivor benefits are unavailable to any civil union anywhere in this country.
If we change ALL civil marriages to civil unions, and leave the word “marriage” to the religious ceremony, that would be Constitutional and fair. But so far most opponents to civil marriage for same sex couples also oppose civil unions that would be equal to marriage.
sorry megan but matt is a homosexual.
If you don’t like God, you would think you wouldn’t want to call it marriage. After all, it is 1000’s of years of tradition seated in religion. If you don’t like religion, why would you fight so hard to join someones religious traditions?
Nope, marriage existed long before religion took the concept.
Good for you! You can read. I didn’t say that it didn’t. What I did say is that it has been seated in religion for thousands (however many) of years now, and is generally viewed as a religious ceremony. Soooooo again, why would you want to take part in that if it goes against YOUR beliefs?
Because I understand the difference between civil marriage and religious marriage. I don’t view it as an exclusively religious ceremony. So the way I see it, I’m not taking part in something that goes against my beliefs. I see this whole situation as the religious side trying to take ownership of a word that they don’t actually own.
Get a civil union… again… why want marriage if its seated in religion? Fight for the civil unions to be special to gays. Fight on that note. Why fight to be a part of something that doesn’t agree or recognize you? Fight to start YOUR OWN tradition.
Because it’s not “seated in religion”. I’m not going to let anyone, least of all you, tell me what I can and cannot call my relationship. You have not provided any good reason, other than “it’s a religious term”, which I have demonstrated that, in fact, religion does not own the term, why I should accept anything less than marriage.
They aren’t asking for the rights to have a religious ceremony. They can already do that. They’re asking for the right to a civil marriage license.
What a silly comment. There are many straight athiest couples. Straight non-Christian couples. They call it marriage. There are many Christian gay couples as well.
I know you want to be dictating what everyone else does, but you don’t get to do that. People can make up their own minds about their religion. They can make up their own minds about their relationships.
///
Why are we so caught up on this gay marriage thing when there’s obviously more pressing matters, for example, whatever is contaminating the drinking water where DougScott lives. The toxin seems to target the neocortex, but who knows what other adverse effects this stuff could have on the health of the citizens in the town/household?! This may be a serious health issue.
Odd how much this husband resembles a few of the evangelical/fundamental pastors of mega churches who later admitted to homosexual liaisons.
This loving couple is apparently happy to deny others the same privilege and happiness. They aim to defend the “sanctity of marriage”, even though marriage is a civil institution. Perhaps the role of the Church should be restricted to the blessing of marriages after the civil proceeding has taken place, as it is done in many other countries. That way it can pick and chose the marriages it wants to sanctify and stop worrying about the others.
It’s just another job.
may they produce many children..and just 1 be gay..that would be cool..find a better hobby..mind your own backyard
no… pity the gay child born to this self righteous intolerant couple, for they have not the capacity to love him or her.
The Berry Goldwater quote
Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they’re sure trying to do so, it’s going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can’t and won’t compromise. I know, I’ve tried to deal with them……The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom…. I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in ‘A,’ ‘B,’ ‘C,’ and ‘D.’ Just who do they think they are?… I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of “conservatism.”- Barry Goldwater, (1909–1998), five-term US Senator, Republican Party nominee for President in 1964*, Maj. Gen., US Air Force Reserves, author of The Conscience of a Conservative.
I have no idea why my name is attached to this post as if in support for what Dannyboy7 is saying. I don’t support it.
Ms Sumner – I jsut saw that as well when I re-checked my post. I have no idea why your name is in my post. I do not know you nor have I ever heard of you before now. My only guess is that there is a ghost in the machine today. I am going to flag my post with hopes the BDN will remove it.
Please flag my post – I never had any intention of including your name in the post – Discus slipped!
Hey, you might be on to something, stewie12. The right wingers could just reverse the word “dog” on Sundays and voila! Two for the price of one. Problem solved.
Wow, pieces of trash trying to deny honest hard working people the right to marry and essentially be happy…disgraceful.
So you can read the minds of dogs to see if they can give consent? That is an amazing ability that needs to be shared with the rest of the country! /sarcasm
My guess is that like all people who are so against something like this, that they both struggle with homosexual feelings themselves….no matter how you point out to people with this mindset that God or Jesus would not like their behavior they will not relent because they would have to examine their own feelings and fears…..there is a belief among some people that the reason Hitler perpetuated the Holocaust was because he believed he had been abandoned by his Jewish father….I believe these people are working from the same angle…. They should give this up and come out of the closet…..they would be happier……..
He looks an awful lot like Marcus Bachmann, don’t you think?
I hope they have a gay child.
sorry megan but im pretty sure your husband bats for the other team. Just sayin….
Humans should have the right to marry humans…. Love is all that matters… I will be loving my homosexual friends on November 6 and support them unconditionally… My gay friends love me as my straight friends do.. who am I to tell them they can’t marry their true love??!!! Those of you take the “religious” way… if you truly feel that God is against this.. then let him decided in the end not you!
I wonder how long this marriage built on hate will last?
What’s really disgraceful is the Sec’y of State refusing to word the ballot question the way the petition was worded. By leaving out the phrase that protects churches from having to perform ceremonies they don’t want to, Summers is attempting to influence the results in the way he wishes. Typical Republican tactic.
Hey, here’s a thought.
The sanctity of Marriage means to be binded to someone you love.
Tell me Mr. and Mrs. Hutson, if you woke up tomorrow, and your Matt (or Megan) was the same gender as you, but the same person, would you still love him/her?
You know, if you’re standing up for the sanctity of Marriage, you agreed that you’ll be there for each other until death do you part.
You’d be gay and married. If you don’t love each other enough to stay together in that case, then you’re really not standing up for any sanctity of any marriage.
check out Megan’s fb – she photographs weddings (and lesbian couples it seems). So if she makes money off a lesbian wedding it is ok?!?
matt’s fb reveals he subscribes to porn models.. sounds like a great guy!
http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html
Silly arguments.
There is no requirement to procreate in marriage. If you don’t hold straight couples to that standard, then it isn’t fair to hold gay couples to it. That’s a double standard, aka, hypocrisy.
I just can’t believe there are at least 45 of you out there.
I don’t see why religion even plays into this. Last I checked, you don’t need to get married in a church, you don’t need a holy person to perform the ceremony, and I am pretty sure I filed my marriage license with the STATE of Maine, not the CHURCH of Maine. Marriage is NOT a religious binding, but a legal binding.
Seems like the simple solution would be to allow the churches the right to deny same sex marriages in their facilities and priests, ministers, and pastors the right to refuse performing the ceremony.
churches already deny people marriage, and will retain that right.
Matt & Megan Hutson define their marital roles – by denouncing the validity of couples that do not fit their views. I would suggest tyranny, but that has been overused. I would suggest inequality – It too has been over used. It is nothing short of amazing, gentrified people, who want nothing more than to make sure that when you have sex, you must do it their way or you are doing it wrong. How many couples that are male and female engage in some of the most disgusting sex? Where are the biblical police on these sins? What does the bible old or new testament consider “sinful sex?” – The point is clear, this has little to do with God and almost everything to do with injustice with God’s name stamped on the mission to deprive healthy happy people of choice. The vanguards of this issue hired the most sour cream people to mount an attack upon a group who has been denied rights again and again, all in the name of God. While the very people who denounce same sex marriage engage in all kinds of sexual sin themselves – but that is okay, because it is not gay sin. Even though almost all sins are considered equal, besides the ten commandments – which I think everyone breaks. Hypocrisy kool-aide for everyone who denounces equality and champions tyranny, Jesus would so love you, am I right? :)
In biblical times, if the husband died, the wife would have to marry his brother to keep property in the family. In biblical times, men had more than one wife. Also, if a wife were infertile, they used a handmaiden. Modern day marriage couldn’t be further from biblical times!
Well, if you can turn her into a human being and also teach her to comprehend and agree to a civil contract then go right ahead.
Hmm, a married couple trying to deny other loving couples the right to…get married.
Brilliant!
They are just representing marriage between one man & one woman. No different than those leading the marriage between gays. Why do you mention they are interested in what goes on in the bedroom, I don’t see a thing about bedroom in the article. Keeping marriage between one man & one woman is their interest. Heterosexuals have rights too you know.
And they have them.
If this couple thinks that same sex couples getting married is a threat to marriage, then they don’t seem to have that strong of a marriage to begin with.
Nobody cares who anyone chooses to spend their life with. I truly believe the G/L should have some sort of legal union that entitles them to the benefits of a heterosexual marriage-I don’t deny their rights- just don’t call it marriage. They need to find their own definition & all will be well. Until they do I will continue to vote no
Why should we find another term?
Because the term “marriage” is taken.
I’m sorry, I should have been more specific, can you provide a legal reason as to why we should find another term?
The court in Hawaii did.
by whom? Which religion that use that term has it?
WOW! So you believe that they should have the same rights as us, but ill still vote no because of terminology?? That is so lame… Then we all should come up with a word acceptable to all for all? It’s just a word, for the sake of hey-soos! Why don’t you also rail against them commandeering the word “GAY”? It used to be quite useful in many situations! I’m upset because people insist on calling pick-ups and SUV crossovers “trucks”!
Thanks for the chuckle.
you know honestly I half agree with you on that. I think LGBT community should get a civil union license but so should heterosexuals. The government should BAN the word marriage from ALL legal documents. EVERYONE should get a Civil Union license. That way religious w@ckos can takethat word and shove….well you know where they can stick it. Your side talks about the sanctity of Marriage…what a joke that is…you don’t think it has all ready been ruined by the like of Kim K and Britney S. you can claim to be en lighted and say “I truly believe the G/L should have some sort of legal union that
entitles them to the benefits of a heterosexual marriage-I don’t deny
their rights” when you are really just as bad as the rest of them. I just know that when my kids look back on this time in history they are going view your side with the same disdain that we now have for the KKK and those that didn’t want to abolish slavery.
What about Churches that do not care? Why should Churches that do want to marry Gay couples not be allowed to do so?
I’m sorry but there is no good reason same sex couples shouldn’t have the same rights. These people are going out of their way to deny same sex couples happiness. The only valid point they have is religion which itself is extremely hypocritical in my opinion. The bible supports slaves, women not having equal rights as men, tolerance. You can’t tell me that having religious nuts protesting at soldiers funerals, and going door to door trying to convert everyone is a fair and respectful. Maybe if religion actually celebrated the way that its based on I would have more respect for that point. Other then that I can’t wait till November when same sex marriage gets legalized and thousands of people become happy.
I’m not frightened, but definitely concerned about your “homo- fascism” ?
New Rule: Gay marriage won’t lead to dog marriage. It is not a slippery slope to rampant inter-species coupling. When women got the right to vote, it didn’t lead to hamsters voting. No court has extended the Equal Protection Clause to salmon. And for the record, all marriages are same sex marriages. You get married, and every night, it’s the same sex.
Ha, ha! Thanks for the laugh! You also make a very good point!
lol
Two questions:
1. Isn’t the purpose of marriage procreation?
2. Obviously people don’t choose to be gay. Why would they? Who would want to be ridiculed their whole life?
1. No, the purpose of marriage can be what you want it to be. If you want your marriage to be for having kids, that’s fine. If you want your marriage to be for commiting to a relationship with another person that you love, that’s fine too.
2. I’ve been gay all my life, and I sure didn’t choose it.
Try to think outside the box! Have you ever heard of adoption or surrogate mothers?
So at what point would you make a childless couple divorce? If they can’t procreate, why let them remain married?
So at what point would you make a childless couple divorce? If they can’t procreate, why let them remain married?
Mmm, I think the purpose of marriage is commitment. The purpose of a hard on is procreation.
Aren’t they a special couple…….
Leave people alone and let them marry the person of their choosing.
Well, Ifeel bad for the young bigoted and uninformed couple…Reminds me of a story my Grandfather Oleson told me…
Little Ole was sitting on a bench eating about a dozen Snickers bars one after another…An old man saw Little Ole and said, “Uff dah, if you eat all those candy bars you are going to lose all of your teeth.”
Little Ole replied, “My grandfather lived to be 100 years old and he had all of his teeth.”
The man replied, “I’ll bet he didn’t eat candy bars hand over first, did he?”
Little Ole said, “Nope, he minded his own dang business….”
I think you have told that one before… I still chuckle. But, why did the old man call the boy Uff dah?
I would just like to say a couple of things. 10 days ago I married my partner of 4 years in a small ceremony of about 80 of our closest friends and family members in the North Maine Woods on a beautiful lake. Yes, I am a man, and yes, my partner is a man. We exchanged fairly “traditional” vows and decided to seal our marriage with a kiss. The only thing that was different about our wedding is the fact that there are no legal ties between us. If my husband was to get into an accident and be seriously injured, I might not be able to even see him in the hospital because I am “not a family member”. Luckily, our families are very close to each other, and would never imagine denying us access to one another if said accident was to ever occur. Mind you, most of the people that witnessed our marriage would consider themselves “conservative” and christian, BUT, that has not stopped them from being supportive and loving and accepting of our marriage. The people who oppose SSM will not stop us, or any other Same-sex couple from marrying, no matter how hard they try. Heaven forbid this does not pass in November, we will try again. And then, we will try AGAIN!! We will never back down, you will never get rid of us, and you will not shut us up. We are here, we are queer, and we will not back down!!!
Great post! I look foreward to the day when people look back at this moment in history and see the people against same sex marriage the same way that we see the people who were against interracial marriage.
Congratulations!!!!
The best of everything good to you and your partner! You are pioneers paving the way for SS couples in Maine!
I have been on the fence as to how to vote on this issue but the more I see and read the intolerance and pettiness from the gay marriage supporters in picking apart a picture of a couple just because the do not agree with their position. You call them intolerant because they are working against what you want but you are acting the same way towards them. I saw the same thing in the Chick-Fil-A controversy and your actions are not helping you cause at all.
Like I said before, they are not intolerant for having a different opinion, they are intolerant for trying to deny American’s their equal rights under the law. Sorry if we get a bit upset when people want us to remain second class citizens.
I personally don’t believe you’ve been on the fence about this. You’re going to criticize gay people for being upset that they don’t have equal rights? You’re fine with the fact that people talk about gays as if they’re evil and intent on destroying marriage for all? Come on. If you were really on the fence, you’d be sensitive about both and not just one or the other.
You aren’t on the fence. It’s okay really.
“I have been on the fence as to how to vote on this issue but the more I see and read the intolerance and pettiness from the gay marriage supporters in picking apart a picture of a couple just because …[they] …do not agree with… [an opposing] …position.” — It is position that denies rights. It is oppression. Oppression is defined by, “The state of being subject to such treatment or control” and “Prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control”
— I would ask you Douglas, “Do you think it is acceptable to withhold rights that you possess but wish or do deny others?” the second part to this question is, “Do you think that you would be ridiculed for denying rights to others or working to deny rights for others?”
“You call them intolerant because they are working against what you want but you are acting the same way towards them.”
— People are calling this couple intolerant because the couple are intolerant and working to withhold rights from other Americans.
— what are homosexuals and heterosexual allies doing that proves your statement? Are they denying heterosexual couples the right to marry? Are they bashing Heterosexual couples heads in? Are they preventing people from speaking their mind? The answer is — no. People can reply to an opinion and it is not intolerant.
“I saw the same thing in the Chick-Fil-A controversy and your actions are not helping… [your]… cause at all.”
— I disagree. I believe that you want to feel validated in despising people asking for equal treatment and need to justify reasons this out-group is bad. How dare people display their displeasure with organizations that deny them equality? What a poor argument sir.
He needs to go back to Oklahoma! That attitude fits right in there, but not in Maine! Damn Transplants….take your hate and leave the state!
Check out his facebook page! He subscribes to a bunch of models/strippers! lmao! Very naughty boy!
How can you defend the “sanctity” of an institution that has 52% failure rate! Why don’t these marriage-lovers direct their energy to strengthening and saving straight marriages instead of denying those who want to get married that right. I have been married for 31 years. Anyone who wants to get married has my blessing. Misery loves company! :)
That couple just looks creepy
One looks nice – the other reminds me of Jim Bakker.
Glad that a couple from somewhere else are telling Maine families how to define themselves. >cough<
I’m glad that this issue is up for a vote and am hoping Mainers will do me proud by taking a step in the right direction in voting to allow same-sex marriage. For all those who are against same sex marriage because you “value the sanctity of marriage” I’d like to know how this legislation, if passed, would make your marriage any less important/sacred/etc. If it’s
because of an incessant need to tie religion to marriage … please read the question carefully …
“Maine voters will be asked on Nov 6: “Do you want to allow the state of Maine to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples?”
It does not ask “Do you want to make it illegal for religious institutions in the state
of Maine to refuse to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies?”
The question being put to vote has NOTHING to do with religion and/or the religious
definition of marriage. Passing this law doesn’t mean that churches and religious groups have to recognize or officiate a same-sex marriage. It has to do with allowing people to enter into a legally binding relationship with one another. People obtain marriage license
ALL the time and then, imagine, they get married without any kind of religious
ceremony or seal of approval. Logic would then follow that anyone who thinks gay marriage has a negative effect on their own marriage would have to feel the same for ALL marriages not notarized in a religious ceremony. Somehow, I doubt most people go around asking heterosexual married couples who officiated their marriage. I’ve been married for six years and no one has ever asked me a question that specific (for the record … there was nothing religious about our wedding ceremony). I’d be happier if people would just admit that the reason they oppose same-sex marriage is because they are homophobic rather than try to mask it as something more.
REMEMBER GOD MADE ADAM & EVE NOT (ADAM & STEVE)
Adam and Eve, propagating the world through incest, not Adam and Steve, propagating the world through incest…
Your god has nothing to do with the civil construct of marriage.
Keep it to yourself.
Read the post above from 19County80. I beg you!
God made Ronald and Jane and Nancy Reagan. God made John and Carol and Cindy McCain. God made Bob and Phyllis and Elizabeth Dole. God made Rudy and Regina and Donna and Judith Giuliani. God made Rush and Roxy and Michele and Marta and Kathryn Limbaugh.
God must love Republican men with multiple wives seeing as how He made so many of them.
On her radio show,
Dr. Laura said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an
abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any
circumstance. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Schlesinger,
written by a US man, and posted on the Internet. It’s funny, as well as quite
informative:
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regar
ding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share
that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the
homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22
clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice
from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to
follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female,
provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims
that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I
own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7.
In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period
of menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I
have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing
odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor
is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly
states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or
should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination,
Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can
you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a
defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision
have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around
their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How
should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me
unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops
in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different
kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme
a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the
whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to
death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their
in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable
expertise in such matters, so I’m confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan,
James M. Kauffman,
Ed.D. Professor Emeritus,
Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education University of Virginia
P.S. (It would be a damn shame if we couldn’t own a Canadian)
THAT WAS AWESOME!!!!!!!!!! Thank you for sharing this. Some people here won’t read it because it is so long, but please, everyone read it!
Kauffman’s justice is just being delayed a bit until he croaks. Of course he doesn’t believe it but that doesn’t matter. He’ll believe it when it happens.
Haha, thanks so much for sharing this!
A riot! Thanks!
No one threatened them. they made a promise to their constituents, that are more en-lighted than you, they they would fight any source of bigotry in their states. They told them that that kind of bigotry was not wanted it their state. Period.
What are they protecting marriage against? If they are happily married that’s great, but don’t stick their nose in other couples business.
I am so tired of one of the most hateful and intolerant groups in this country referring to others as hateful and intolerant.If you dont agree with them you are considered intolerant or anti-gay. I am not anti-gay or against them having rights in a legally recognized civil union, I am against redefining marriage, are they also fighting to add other groups? What about bi-sexuals, should they be forced to choose ? Why not allow everyone to have a spouse of each gender… but lets not forget the transgendered…. or the polygamists,should they be forced to choose JUST 1 wife? Maybe we should just put a limit on the number of spouses you can have…. or is that too intolerant and hateful??
http://scienceblogs.com/effectmeasure/wp-content/blogs.dir/398/files/2012/05/i-805b79ff3c6f63f842ab03796b85fc46-thestupiditburns.jpg
I wonder if they were both virgins when they were married.. Because you know, they need to “protect the santity of marriage”. I wonder why the organization opted to choose such a young couple – its not like they know any thing about marriage. WHy didn’t they choose someone with 40plus years of marriage? OH RIGHT, BECAUSE THE ENTIRE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE IS GONE.
In a world of 60% divorce rates, 48 hours marriages, and irritatingly overnumbered amounts of infidelty – we need to protect the “sanctity” of marriage?
My LBGT friends feel stronger about the sanctity of marriage then most hetereosexual couples. AND BESIDES, Who cares what others do in their relationship? Restricting someone’s legal rights is discrimination. The sanctity of marriage as defined between a man and a women is from the bible. There’s a thing called separation of church and state. Read it.
Weird debate — a couple of people want a legal contract that automatically qualifies them to a set of mutually share rights. This couple wants to determine who is authorized to enter into such a contract. Nothing RELIGIOUS there … unless it is entered into under a religious law … in which case, the couples should be held to the terms of religious, not secular law.
If they oppose the SECULAR law, they have an overriding obligation to give clear an pervasive evidence that the enactment would cause irreparable harm to society. Phrase another way: That a gender based determination of who can a contract for shared benefits, and rights, is harmful to society; if it can be shown to be so, then ALL such contracts must be nullified — in this case, two men (or two women) should henceforth be prohibited from entering into a mutually beneficial contract as regards their relationship under law.
THINK ABOUT THAT! EVERY contract between parties of the same gender must be nullified for the good of society as a whole. If you don’t agree, then these people are obviously engaged in a form of bigotry and, in a religious sense, violating the Second Commandment as defined by Jesus; the summary of Torah, as defined by Hillel; if we consider that the “Golden Rule exists in most religions, they are promoting the violation a principle rule in ALL known religions. Should I, or you, care? Next Month is the release of “Saint Paul’s Joke” — a book the Vatican requested to draft copies of, and which they received in July — it will explain it to you.
this is very ,very wrong nobody should have special rights,we are one messed up world.
Gay people are not asking for special rights. They are asking for equal rights that every heterosexual has. How is this special treatment?
OK hotshot… then why do religious people get special rights in the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968?
Why don’t you complain about that?
WE AREN’T TALKING ABOUT THAT ,WE ARE TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE WANTING SPECIAL RIGHTS BECAUSE THEY ARE GAY OR LESBIAN.
I’M OLD AND I DON’T KNOW HOW TO TURN CAPS LOCK OFF
HEE HEE!
You’re talking about special rights…
Why should someone get special rights because they have chosen to follow a given mythology?
Same thing hotshot.
It’s not the same thing though, people choose their religion, they don’t choose their sexual orientation.
I happen to agree… so why are we giving “special rights” to a choice, and why is that acceptable when gay people made no choice to be gay?
Indeed, think of all the money the government could make if it took away the tax exempt status of churches.
man –woman not man—man tedddlick
Why? What is your rational legal argument to defend that?
You know… something that will hold up in court.
We’re all waiting.
Well, he doesn’t have any of those, but he will type in all caps, hoping to be louder than the rest.
It’s not special rights it’s equal rights.
Again, asking to be treated as an equal is not the same thing as asking for special rights.
How is it special to be treated equally?
I really think you are just trolling now. I refuse to admit that anyone is that stupid.
at least i am married to a very beautiful woman & have three good kids the way it should be.
So, what’s it like knowing that once same sex marriage is legal, your children and grandchildren will be embarrased about having you as their dad? How they’ll make up excuses for your behavior?
i would be more embarrassed about if i was a kid ,saying here is my dad & my other dad or vice versa.this is just wrong & if it passes maine is an extremly spineless state.
Because this is the most serious problem facing the state of Maine…jeez. Fix the state then worry about gay marriage.
Shameful.
I guess people like them consider letting same sex marriages happen “devalues” their marriage. Since when are people worried about the value of their marriage against other peoples? I asked this question once and thats the response I got. “How does it hurt you?” “It devalues the constitution of marriage” What a load of hooey. I’ll be voting yes, thanks!
No rational legal argument against gay marriage.
At the end of the day, that will cause those who wish to harm citizens by exempting them from marriage to lose.
This is a very simple fact.
I really don’t see this as a newsworthy story. If they had hired a gay couple that would be news. What or who do you expect them to employ? What a desperate attempt to discredit PMM.
No end of bigotry in sight. There simply isn’t any argument against letting two consenting adults form a union, period. Even a crusty old Conservative like myself can see that. If you have a religious objection, fine. I’m sure we can balance your rights to practice your religion by calling all legal unities by consenting adults “civil unions” and leave “marriage” to the church folk. But the bottom line is that people should be allowed to be together and that a family is a family, regardless of gender and/or sexual orientation.
A marriage is between 2 people of the same or opposite sex. Denying marriage to two people because they are the same sex is discrimination.
—–
Like murder, incest and pederasty, homosexuals choose to follow a behavior that has serious consequences in the life of the individual. Attempting to usurp the institution of marriage by default through a ruse of manipulation and guilt-implied tactics is hardly commendable. In fact, homosexuals would do well to take their flaccid rhetoric and seek another alternative to this reprehensible lifestyle before they cause more harm to themselves and society.
Really? I chose to be gay? I don’t remember ever making that choice. I’m just glad that every night, when I go to bed with my boyfriend, I’m doing what I can to make you uncomfortable ^_^
More empty and frivolous language from you. All to mask your bigotry. It was racism the other day and homophobia today. So who do you actually like? Does everyone have to be exactly like you? Do you really think it is right to use the law to influence others to make all the same choices you did? That’s not the America I want to live in.
That is fair.
But I wonder why ”
Protect Marriage Maine announced Wednesday that it has HIRED a married couple to serve as campaign director and grass-roots coordinator ”
Aren’t grassroots organizers that are hired guns, really Astro-turfers ?
I’ve read that the Yes folks are really volunteers…… and their leadership is really from Maine.
” He has worked on campaigns for Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum. He recently served as the campaign manager during Bruce Poliquin’s U.S. Senate bid.”
But where are they from ?
BDN, is not “Matt Hutson of WHERE, will work as campaign director ” the conventional form ?
It is a glaring omission of at least one the 5 W’s of journalism.
I sure hope that these professional conservative political hired guns,
the Astro- turfers, of intolerance are at least really from Maine.
I just can’t be sure about that from this article.
I just sent Matt Hutson a Facebook message consisting of three words: SHAME ON YOU!
I would have sent one to Megan Hutson if I could have found her on Facebook.
I wouldn’t dare to suggest that everyone who reads this do likewise, of course. *snicker*
—
Where in the article does it say that these folks are interested in what goes on in other people’s bedrooms??? The article is about same sex marriage and not about people of the same sex sleeping in the same room. To some people marraige is about more than just bedroom play.
522 comments on this story (so far) and 23 on the story that we have more homeless children than we can house.
It is obvious that the majority of posters think more with their lower extremitries than their upper ones.3
I just looked for that story, Mark, and still don’t see it.
Here’s where I’m confused: “If the initiative on the November ballot passes, marriage will be redefined for everyone” YUP – re-defined!!
These haters might want to check their sound bites.
Because marriage is between a man and woman.
The term marriage is trademarked, effectively. Everyone knows what it has meant for 3000 years.
Want something similar for same sex couples? Come up with you own unique, special term for it. Do that and all the controversy drops.
Hijacking a sacrament and ramrodding your lifestyle to include you is insulting and only serves to raise passions, anger an hate.
Want acceptance? Then ACCEPT that you can not re-invent that no matter how hard you try to guilt, chide, insult and protest anyone who doesnt follow your point of view.
It works both ways.
I think that same sex couples should have the right to get married, and on top of that they should also get the same breaks as regular married couples. If two men or two women want to get married than let them get married. If more people were like these two than the world will go to hell in a hand basket faster than ever. Everyone is free to believe what they will but please don’t force it on to others who think differently.
It seems to me that disagreement is being confused with intolerance. I can & many can disagree with the objective of Protect Marriage Maine and like-minded groups. And, vice versa. Disagreement does not equal intolerance.
Are tolerant of gays? Do they make you feel yicky? Have you heard people calling gays names and wishing them dead>
A majority should not be able to vote on a minorities rights. Civil rights have not been voted on in history, had this been the case, blacks would still be treated unequally in the law. Even women’s suffrage wasn’t voted on because as society evolves, we become more intelligent and tolerable, and realize the cruelties of the past. Gays and lesbians, myself included, are a minority. Our rights do not affect the heterosexual majority, at all. The way things are now, we are treated as uequal, and less human than you. This issue is not political, it’s about being decent humans, about not judging others for being different than you. It’s about compassion- anyone who lacks the ability to see this issue and care about those who are being denied the basic dignity and right of equality that our very nation is based on- also lack compassion. This isn’t about rights, laws, politics, this is about love, and family. And I promise you- every single person writing on here has someone in their life that is gay or lesbian. And those people are hurt, suffering, sometimes will even take their own lives over your cruel words. So yes, find a cause that makes the world better, and leave lovers to love! The world can NEVER have enough of that glorious word. And whether you support it or not- it already exists, and always will!
A hobby like subscribing to soft porn through his facebook page…but wait, Matt Hutson already does that:
https://www.facebook.com/matt.hutson.75/subscribedto
I find it pretty sad when LGBT members resort to Domestic Terrorism to try and get their message across.
Hutson is nothing more than a paid shill from Louisiana with connections to the Heritage Foundation. Maine doesn’t need any bigots imported from the south.
https://www.facebook.com/search/results.php?q=Matt+Hutson&init=public#!/photo.php?fbid=84163657413&set=a.429698732413.227112.84160887413&type=1&theater
It really makes me sick that this is what most churches are focused on. Imagine how much we could accomplish if we worked together against NAMBLA, domestic violence, or drunk driving…You know…things that actually hurt people(not saying that there’s not hate crimes…just that gay’s aren’t fighting for the right to hurt someone)! Instead their spending all this time and money on campaining against two adults having a consentual relationship simply because of their gender. I would think you could find real issues to oppose and stop worrying if there’s two men or two women in love with each other!
“He has worked on campaigns for Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum.”
Yup, that just about sums up their sanity, or lack thereof. It’s beyond disgusting that there are millions of people in this country who expend so much money and time on their own bigoted feelings and sociopathic tendencies. People like these two need to just shut up and focus their money and energy on something that actually would benefit society, such as humanitarian efforts. Sorry to break it to you, but gays and lesbians legally marrying isn’t going to cause the universe to collapse in on itself or ‘family values’ to be demolished. Your worth as a human being is not defined by what you do in the bedroom; only by your actions toward those around you.
Read the hate on both sides.
So true-and funny!
I am Catholic, heterosexual, and support same-sex marriage. It is so much less despicable than the hate and recent history than the “church” has, unfortunately, come to represent. Live and let live, in happiness, and judge not lest ye be judged.
I do not have an issue against same sex marriage. If two people are in love and want to get married, enjoy your future together. Its not up to me to determine how they live their life, its their life. It is a lifestyle decision as much as wearing a helmet while driving a motorcycle is a safety issue. But think of the uproar that is raised when the state tries to bring up the topic of a mandatory helmet law. Some of the arguments raised for not wearing a helmet are the arguments that are being denied the same-sex marriage proponents.
We are a nation of laws but we have the ability to change those laws if they no longer meet the needs of society. A law was passed to allow same-sex marriages by our elected officials. Those elected officials did not consider the desires of the population when they passed the law causing it to go to ballot. The original law allowing same-sex marriage was voted down by referendum in 2009. Now it is coming up for referendum again in November.
What I have an issue with is having it keep coming up to vote. If it passes and same sex marriage is approved, there will be another set of petitions to get it on the ballot to try to overturn it. If it fails and same-sex marriages are not allowed, there will be petitions to get it on the ballot to try again. There is passion on both sides of the issue but how long is the sea-saw vote going to continue. This is not a State of Maine issue. It is a national issue. It doesn’t matter which side of the issue you are on, a lot of the driving force behind it is coming from out of state. If the Federal Government does not take a stand and set a national policy the problem will continue to play out at the polls or the courts.
So what?
Maybe they should “work tirelessly” against pre-marital sex and cohabitating while they are at it.
I would like to see people work tirelessly against teenage pregnancies, work tirelessly to make sure EVERYONE has a roof over their head and food on the table, work tirelessly to get our troops home, work tirelessly to find a cure for cancer… and I could go on.
Why are our priorities revolved around who can and can’t be married…something that has absoloutley NO effect on anyone except the two people getting married.
Ahhhh – what cute little bigots.
Yessah
To cp444: Actually, I think he’s saying that there are good people who believe in Jewish zombies.
Apparently this loving couple is under the mistaken and rather bizarre impression that only certain people are entitled to equal rights under the law, irrespective of the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, or the Constitution, and that others should be penalized for having violated a several thousand year old biblical law which was intended for the tribe of Levi and not the citizens of the United States.