December 13, 2017
Editorials Latest News | Poll Questions | Republican Tax Bill | Roy Moore | Susan Collins

Comments for: Same-sex marriage is a legal right

Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

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

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

  • Anonymous

    Yes!

  • ptkitty

    No!

    • Alec Cunningham

      Why not?

      • Tedlick Badkey

        It has no rational answer.

      • to raise income for the state coffers / as does a traffic citation !!!!

    • Alec Cunningham

      Well, three people “like” this comment.  Do any of them want to address why this is not a legal right (legal-as in independent of any church)?

      • Because if it were “a right” it would ot require a license.  You do not need “a license to practice religion, speak in public, criticize the government, keep your home private, vote, or recieve a fair trial.

        • Alec Cunningham

          Is this a legal definition or an observation?

          (Thank you for answering my question).

          • Anonymous

             It’s definitely not a legal definition.  The right to equal protection under the law (e.g., as provided in the 14th Amendment) holds regardless of whether the benefits/protections in question require a license or not.

          • So, according to you, I am entitled to a hunting license if I am blind, or a marriage license if I’m already married? Suppose I am desperately poor and can not afford the cost of a marriage license, do I have the right to one anyway?

          • Anonymous

            If your that poor then you ought not be marrying anyways. You could not support a wife. I would keep my hunting license and live off the land. Then you could have a common law marriage and would not need a license for that. Just a prenup so wife could not take you to the poor house. :^)

        • Anonymous

          Why does marriage require a license anyway?

  • Anonymous

    It’s the right and fair thing to do.

  • Anonymous

    well said!

  • Alec Cunningham

    It’s so blatantly anti-gay when some religious leaders tell us that their religious freedoms are being trampled if other religious leaders are allowed to perform same-sex marriages or even if no church is involved at all.

    We don’t live in Iran; we don’t live in a country that has laws dictated by religious leaders.  We live in a democracy and, like it or not, things happen in a democracy that maybe not everybody likes.  The fact that two guys or two gals love each other so much that they want to marry doesn’t really affect those who are against same-sex marriage.  In fact, one would think that it would be a welcome idea that there are so many thousands of people, young and old, fighting to marry at a time when the marriage rate is decreasing and the divorce rate is increasing.

    This is about love-loving someone enough to want to spend the rest of one’s life with that special person and love of our fellow Americans who want the same things as everybody else.

    • Anonymous

      Why is it that heterosexual couples have had legal rights and protection, anyway?

      • Alec Cunningham

        Because gays were those vile monsters that were subhuman, I guess.  They didn’t even want protections in their disgusting lives.  That’s my guess.  Fortunately, a majority of people don’t think like that anymore!

        • Anonymous

          Even though I know you are being sarcastic and joking – gay people are certain neither vile monsters or subhumans – they are equal in dignity in all ways to heterosexuals!!!  Let’s just set that record straight in case someone comes in the middle and thinks it was a serious comment!!  I feel the reason that heterosexual couples have had and currently have legal rights and protections because, generally speaking, their union has the potential to produce off spring.  No matter how loving and enduring a homosexual union is their physical union has no possibility of producing children.  Often times one member of the heterosexual couple – it was mainly women – but now many times the man; will reduce their income and increase their dependency on the other partner to raise/tend to the child that their physical union produced.  Their children will carry on the society of the country.  They will pay the debt the national debt that their parents incurrred, fight the wars that their parents started, and help foot the bill for their parents social security and health care.   Hence, a country/society supports such heterosexual unions because of the offsprings which can and do result from the physical unioin. 

          Most people certainly do not hate gays.  They do respect the differences in the two relationships to.  Because offspring can and do result from a physical union between a man and a woman and never result from the physical union of two men or two women.  The two relationships are not equal; they are quite different.  That does not mean that gays are subhuman nor monsters.  It means their relationships are different from heterosexuals. 

          • Anonymous

            There are plenty of heterosexual couples who, for one reason or another, are physically incapable of having children.

          • Anonymous

            And many who choose not to.

          • Anonymous

            Not every couple will produce a child, but no homosexual pair will EVER produce a child. 

          • Alec Cunningham

            I know that many people now don’t hold the opinion that gays are subhuman, but looking at old public service reels about the homosexual menace, I know that that was once a commonly held belief.  I appreciate your thoughts on the dignity of all of us!
            I see what you’re saying about a married couple resulting in children, but there are many gay couples who have children now and many gay couples who don’t want children.  (This couple here is definitely in the latter group!)  There are gay couples now who are adopting children or have children that is the offspring of one of the partners and I don’t see that changing should they be allowed to marry.  I really think that just as there are straight couples who do and don’t have children, there are gay couples that are the same.  I was recently in West Hollywood, California, and I saw a good number of couples (who I assume were gay) with children.  It is a different world there now than it was 20 years ago-there is so much more emphasis on children and families.  THAT was never the case and therefore there was no reason to even discuss the idea of gays getting married and having children.
            I know most people don’t hate gays.  I have knocked on the doors of many people in Bangor, Orono, and Old Town neighborhoods and have had deep conversations with people who are torn on this topic.  They truly want us to be happy but they are uncomfortable with the word “marriage” being used for our unions.  I, and most others in the campaign, don’t believe these people to be hateful or bigots.

          • Anonymous

            It is a hard topic and people truly are torn.  In past times in some very far reaching and influencial cultures homosexual relations were openly viewed and even embraced.  The ancient Spartan and Roman societies immediately pop into my mind.  Even though absolutely nothing was seen wrong with these relationships, even in these societies, homosexuals relationship did not have the same status as heterosexual relationships. The reason always went back to the POSSIBILITY (even then they had their own forms of contraception/abortion/letting new borns die) of children from the actual physical union of the partners.  These children from the physical union are the ones that carry the societies of the world forward.  These children will end up caring for all of society – heterosexual and homosexual and the rest.  My childen will be the ones to care for the homosexuals in our family.   They will also be the ones to care for my husband and I.  The children born from a man and a women are the ones who will carry the weight of all in society.  Our society/world will stand on their shoulders.  That is why marriage is different and different benefits/priveledges accrue to the different types of relationships.  I

          • Anonymous

            Rome started out good, but became corrupt, as dd America.

            Homosexuality was condemned in Rome.

            Nero was despised for having “married” his eunuch Sporus, whom he dressed up in his dead wife’s clothes. 

            Another case was the homosexual Emperor Elogabulus who married a rock, and carried it around with him calling it his “bride.” 

          • explain how rome started out good by becoming on of the most emperical states ever beyond england/ rome became greedy needed more $$$$ more slaves to continue/ was not a true republic
            read some world history homosexuality was respected in greece but was to small to protect itself from the hoards of rome & turkey/
            a peaceful nation does not go to war for greed only to protect the rights of it’s citizens
            we need more people who believe to protect our citizebz for their rights/ marriage/ love/ not greed and tyranny.
            pk

          • children of all unions not just hetro but also homosexual will be taking care of us all ther will bw no difference as there is no difference in the lives of dfferently rised children

  • Alec Cunningham

    I like this picture a lot!  So, this will probably answer some misguided (or mean-spirited) questions.  The woman is the bride.  If there are two women, then they are both brides.  Sometimes they might both wearing wedding dresses, sometimes they might both wear tuxedos.  Maybe there’ll be one of both.  But none of that really matters because there is a tradition of non-traditional weddings in this country already.  Skydiving weddings, underwater weddings, Star Wars weddings, even nudist weddings where no one wears anything at all.  So maybe we should stop focusing on “who’s the bride and who’s the groom” and realize that these two people LOVE each other.  They want to MARRY each other because of that love.  And they want to have that marriage ceremony just like other free Americans do.

    • Anonymous

      You think Star Wars weddings are okay, and you want to advise the people of Maine on marriage?

      OY!

      • Alec Cunningham

        Oy is right!  There is no law that says that wedding MUST be a certain way-it’s no one’s business how a couple weds and, as long as the activity itself is legal, then there isn’t any reason why a couple can’t marry in any way they wish.  Or do you have a problem with that, too?

        It’s funny that you choose to have a beef with the Star Wars wedding buy not the nudist wedding!

      • is your mind so small as to not allow that @ one time you were not  allowed to buy liquor in each state freely ???? or raise the crops you anted to raise? do you have a memory sir ????

  • Alec Cunningham

    “If same-sex marriage is legalized, churches, temples and mosques will not be required to perform wedding ceremonies.”
    ~~~~~~~~

    Even Bob Emrich has stated that this is already the law of the land because of our constitution.

    • Anonymous

      Then Mr. Emrich should have stated the obvious truth that any law which violates natural law, human reason, and the principle of correctness is null and void.

      I believe Mr. Emrich believes that to be the truth of the matter.

      No law can grant a right for two people of the same sex to marry. 

      It is madness.

      • Alec Cunningham

        You’re living in a parallel universe where the laws of the state are not valid.  I, and the majority of everyone else in this country, don’t live there.

        • Anonymous

          We all live in a place where a law must be moral to be correct. 

          An immoral law is no law at all. 

          • Tedlick Badkey

            It’s only immoral because you choose to look at it that way sweetie.

            When you lost Lawrence v. Texas, you lost that rationale even being able to stand in court.

            I can’t wait to see you lose DOMA as you did DADT… I wish I could see your face.

            It’d be so precious… so precious indeed.

          • Garth Malcolm Kinney

            Who chooses what is moral and what isn’t?

          • Anonymous

            So if enough of us decide that speeding laws are “immoral” they are no longer law?

          • Anonymous

            No, if enough of you decide that speeding laws are immoral, or that calling perversion “marriage” is moral, then you will be living in a mad house.

            The morality of a law does not depend on a majority vote or on anyone’s opinion. It depends on whether or not the law is based on the principle of correctness. 

          • Alec Cunningham

            Who decides the “correctness”?

          • Anonymous

            Those who are gifted with reason and a proper understanding of human nature decide what is correct.  

          • Alec Cunningham

            That sounds rather subjective.

          • Anonymous

            Who determines when a law is “correct” and when a law is “incorrect”?

          • Anonymous

            If enough of you decide that speeding laws are immoral or that perversion is “marriage” then you will be living in a madhouse.

            The morality of a law is not decided by majority vote or by anyone’s opinion. It is based on whether the law embodies the principle of correctness or not. 

      • Garth Malcolm Kinney

        If God has given me this feeling to love my Bf what is wrong with God’s choice?

      • Anonymous

        “No law can grant a right for two people of the same sex to marry.”

        Seems that several states constitutions and courts where SSM is now legal disagree with that statement.  

  • Anonymous

    The marriage license is issued by the state, in accordance with existing law. Only the marriage ceremony and blessing may be given (or withheld) by the church. It stands to reason, therefore, that no couple’s marriage should be subject to the tenets of any church. The concept of Freedom of Religion is as old as our nation.

  • Anonymous

    If same-sex marriage is legalized, then polygamy should be legalized. 

    I consider myself to be a moderate.   Committed same-sex couples should have the same rights and benefits as traditional marriages.  But if same-sex marriage itself is legalized, where does this “acceptance” and “tolerance” end??? 

    • Tedlick Badkey

      With law abiding consensual adults, as it should be.

    • Alec Cunningham

      I see what you’re saying but that should be addressed when that time comes.  Right now, I have not heard of any significant effort to legalize polygamy.  However, there is certainly a very significant effort, from coast to coast, and around the world, to legalize same sex marriage.

      • Anonymous

        They are trying to do it in Utah, maybe there is not a large effort because there are not very many people pushing for it? The whole polygamy agrument fails, because you can just say that you already have one man and one women, why not one man and two women?

    • Anonymous

      This is really an equal-protection issue having to do with the fair and equitable granting of certain benefits and protections under the 14th Amendment, based on marital status.  Several considerations apply:

      What is the nature of the discrimination?  (It’s not even quite clear what equal granting of benefits and protections means in the case of polygamy.  Social-security survivor benefits granted until the last spouse dies would actually extend the payout period beyond what is typical for couples.  Spousal health benefit protections would mean much greater payouts for employers.  It’s not even clear there is discrimination since somebody in a polygamous relationship is already free to marry any one of the partners and get benefits/protections on a par with married couples.)

      Does the law fundamentally exclude a group from enjoying the state-granted benefits?  (Homosexuals can enter into healthy, successful civil marriages but ONLY with people of the same gender; laws against same-gender marriage fundamentally exclude them from entering into such a civil marriage.  Individuals in polygamous relationships are not fundamentally excluded from the institution of civil marriage; again they can marry any one of their partners.)

      Is there some rational reason for discrimination, base on the public good?  (The answer is no when it comes to same-gender marriage.  The answer may also be no for polygamous marriage, but there are enough concerns about the healthfulness of such relationships … especially where the women are involved … that it would need to be examined in more detail.)

    • Anonymous

      If guns are legalized, then so should atom bombs. 

      • Anonymous

        Do not worry….. there are enough for everyone, its just a matter of time. 

    • Anonymous

      well you already allow one man and one women, why not one man and two women? Where odes the acceptance and tolerance end? Did you know there is a argument like this going on in Utah were there is no Gay Marriage? So that argument fails.

    • Anonymous

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

    • pbmann

      I have no problem with polygamy as long as the women are over the age of 18 and are not forced into the relationship for religious reasons.  But, unfortunately, the only polygamous marriages I have seen involve an (much) older man and (very) young bride(s).

      When was the last time you saw a polygamous marriage with the weoman being over 20?

    • Anonymous

      The bible may not be very clear about homosexuality, but it is very clear on polygamy. There are many instances of polygamous relationships in the bible, and they all seemed to be in favor of it. 

      • Anonymous

        (Jude1:7) “In like manner, Sodom and Gomorrah and all the cities of the plain, having gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”

        Genesis Chapter 19: the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah – “Send out the angels, that we may know them.”

        Judges, 22:19 “Send out your male guests that we may know them.”

        Romans 1.

        Nothing could be clearer. 

        • Vibiana

          So, I assume you also keep kosher.  The Bible says to, after all.

  • Anonymous

    Marriage is a universal social institution that pre-dates government and is regulated primarily to protect children.  Marriage law has never been asked to concern itself with love or commitment.  (not referred to on any marriage license application) Anyone who understands what a social institution is and how
    it functions in society (governments do not create them) will understand that
    it would take two or more full generations for many damaging and/or
    unintentional consequences of radically redefining marriage to manifest. And of
    course, by then it would be nearly impossible to reverse.  The responsible thing to do is to pause and
    study the facts and credible findings, many of which are being given the deep
    freeze by multiple media outlets.  If the
    people of Maine decide to legalize genderless marriage, then so be it. But that
    decision must not be made in the absence of credible information.  There are valid concerns regarding this issue.  Please visit http://www.Maine4Marriage.org and review the materials found there.   You can’t have two marriage institutions in a society simultaneously.  You either have man-woman marriage or you have genderless marriage.  This issue is important enough to pause and carefully study both sides.   Maine4Marriage is a non-religious, social science and legal scholarship based organization holding no ill will towards any persons or group.  
     

    • Marco Luxe

      OK we’ll have a moratorium on straight marriages too, if that’s all right with you.  

      Justice delayed is justice denied.

      • It’s O.K. with me.  Civil marriage is obsolete.

    • Anonymous

      That is complete nonsense, for two obvious reasons.  First, civil marriage in the US is not fundamentally about children.  That is obvious from the simple fact that couples can get married and receive benefits associated with civil marriage and yet NEVER have children.  Second, when you raise the issue of “genderless marriage” what you are really questioning is single-gender PARENTING … which is already allowed, in the form of single-parent adoption, in all 50 states in the US.  That boat has already sailed, and trying to bring it up in this context is a transparently-obvious red herring.

    • Anonymous

      The reality is that civil marriage in the US, manifested through the granting of certain benefits and protections to couples,  exists to enhance the healthfulness of families … be they composed of just the couples themselves, the couples plus biological children, or the couples plus kids from adoption, IVF/surrogacy, or previous relationships.  And those reasons apply just as strongly to families built around same-gender couples as to those built around straight couples.  The value of stable, long-term relationships between couples … both for the couples themselves and any kids being raised by the couples … has been more than adequately demonstrated for both straight and same-gender couples.  (Even the recent Regnerus study, which has been so misrepresented by groups like NOM, supports that conclusion.)  That is why the major mental health organizations support societal support of same-gender couples through same-gender marriage.

    • Anonymous

      Great, then you should be supportive of same-sex couples having the right to civil marriage!

      Because there are many same-sex families in this state raising children, and civil marriage benefits will absolutely help those children.

      • Anonymous

        You said it.  The argument is always that stable, long-term relationships are good for the society.  So more is better, right?

  • Joe

    Look at the size of those Pineapples!!

  • Anonymous

    The marriage question aside, the author of this editorial is either completely lost to the distinction between natural (“God given’) rights and legal ones, or just dismissive of natural rights. He makes all rights something government creates and can take away at will, giving it exactly the God-like powers that Col. Mineau describes.

    Contrary to the headline, marriage is not a legal right, although it may be a natural one that ought to be legally recognized: if it were a legal right the referendum wouldn’t be necessary.

    • Anonymous

      The US Supreme Court has, on at least two occasions, ruled that marriage is a fundamental human right covered by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.  Just because people are using referendums to deny same-gender couples equal treatment under the law doesn’t mean they don’t have a legal right to equal treatment under the law.  It just means that a lot of people don’t care or don’t understand about what the Constitution has to say about equal treatment, and that eventually it’ll take the Supreme Court to override their misguided actions.

      • Anonymous

        Ha,ha…the Supreme Court.

        The Supreme Court, where the lawyers are paid $700 per hour and dine on lobster and filet mignon while honest people eat mac and cheese and feed their children beans and franks.

        The Supreme Court which legalized abortion, and the seizure of property of the citizens if it is in the economic interest of the community…

    • Alec Cunningham

      You are sort of right.  The supreme court has said that it is a right in the Loving v. Virginia decision.  However, many of us feel that because of the way the game is played, our only option, if we want to obtain this right again, is to have a referendum.  We shouldn’t be voting on civil rights, but our governor isn’t going to allow us have them again and the Maine supreme court isn’t likely to either.  So, it was a decision between letting the Prop 8 and DOMA cases wind their way to the US supreme court at a snail’s pace or bring it to the ballot box again.  When we win in November, though, because of the rules that the other side has set for this game, there won’t be any accusations of “activist judges” or “legislators ignoring the people.”  Their mantra of “let the people vote” will have worked for us for once and their other mantra of “all the states that voted said no” will no longer be true.
      As for the God-given right to marriage, we all know that marriage has evolved over time and that our laws are not always based on the Bible.  It’s irksome to see religious people use the Bible to attack us and ignore other “wrongs” regarding the institution of marriage that they say they want to protect.

  • Anonymous

    Yes, a legal right, but goes against all tenents of religion and the bible.

    • Anonymous

      The fact that it goes against the tenets of SOME religious groups and SOME interpretations of the Bible … and I say some because many Christian and Jewish denominations hold a completely different view … is irrelevant.  If you want to enact/perpetuate discriminatory laws that harm a group of people, and have them hold up in court, you need to be able to justify them using valid, rational NON-religious arguments, as per the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.

    • Alec Cunningham

      Then I wouldn’t get married to a person of the same sex if I were you.  How many other things are legal that are against your religion?  You are not compelled to participate in those, either, are you?

    • Tedlick Badkey

      And who cares?

      Your buybull is NOT our civil law.

      Never has been. Get over it.

    • Anonymous

      But we don’t deny atheists marriage, do we? Nor do we deny muslims, hindu, or even satanists the right to marry, even if their beliefs go against your religion.

    • Anonymous

      Okay…so churches don’t have to perform SSMs.  What does this have to do with secular society?

  • The thrust of this editorial is stupid and disengenuous.  You can not get a plumer’s license if you are not a plumer. You can not get an electrician’s license if you are not a trained electritian.  You can not get the standard six-year Maine driver’s license if you are old, and you are not entitled to a jury trial if you are a minor.  You are not allowed to vote if you are under guardianship, and you also can not vote from jail. …and oh yeah, Maine will not issue a marriage license to someone already married, or to minors, or to people who wish to marry a non-human.

    The idea that it is illegal to treat people of different “status” differently in the U.S.A. is beyond ridiculous.

    I am still unsure of how I will vote on the gay marriage amendment come November.  My first reaction is to vote no because I do not believe civil marriage is either fair or necessary.  Another status of people who are treated differently under the law are those of us who do not marry.

    • Anonymous

      The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment requires that benefits and protections provided by government be distributed in a fair and equitable manner unless there is some overriding, rational, non-religious reason for discriminating.  I have yet to see any such reason given for denying same-gender couples and their families the same benefits and protections provided straight married couples and their families under civil marriage laws.

      • You are just furthering “discrimination’ by insisting on being part of the discrimatory class.   The protections and benefits available under the civil marriage statutes are NOT available to all citizens. So your protest rings hollow.  You (like other adherents to marriage) are interested in what’s benefitial to you, not what will end “discrimination.”

        • Alec Cunningham

          So, what is YOUR solution?

          • Eliminate civil marriage. 

          • Alec Cunningham

            And what are you doing to get that done?

        • Anonymous

          In the most literal sense of the word “discrimination,” laws almost always discriminate.  That’s not the problem.  The issue is whether the laws forward something recognized as being in the public good, or if they discriminate against groups without any overriding, rational reason, again based on the public good.  In the case of civil marriage, it has long been generally recognized that people fare best — physically and emotionally — when they are in a long-term, stable relationship.  Children fare being raised by couples fare best when the couple is in a long-term, stable relationships.  Encouraging the health and stability of such relationships is in the public interest … which is why civil marriage extends certain benefits and protections in support of such relationships.  You may disagree with that justification, but it is a bit nonsensical to try and cast this strictly as an effort to eliminate all discrimination … because it’s not.  It’s about recognizing the societal benefits of civil marriage, and recognizing ALL relationships that promote those societal benefits.

    • Alec Cunningham

      So should it be legal to treat others of different classes, like Latinos and women, differently?
      (Grammar note: Plumber has a “b”).

      • I don’t think I mentioned Latino’s and women.  My TOTAL point was that the B.D.N. is wrong and that there ARE (currently, not theoretically) different classes of people in the U.S.A. who have restricted citizenship.

        Sorry my grammer (typing actually) is not up to your standards.  My public school was probably inferior to yours.  Wow, look at that more discrimination.

        • Alec Cunningham

          You mentioned classes, so I gave a couple of other examples.

          It sounds like you are being rather defensive.  Is there any way to point out an error without being accused of discrimination?

          • No, I was just pointing out that in the USA some folks get to go to good public schools and some do not.

          • Alec Cunningham

            Uh, huh.  And some people pull themselves up by the bootstraps and learn to spell on their own if the schools didn’t teach them.

    • Anonymous

      In all of the examples you cite, there are legitimate reasons to restrict the license. What legitimate reason is there to deny civil marriage rights to same-sex couples?

      I trust you are not claiming that gays and lesbians wishing to enter into civil marriage are seeking to marry a non-human, are you?

      Civil marriage is here to stay, your views that it is unnecessary are not shared by most Americans. The civil marriage license conveys over 1,100 benefits and privileges from our government, and there is no rational reason to restrict this civil license from same-sex couples.

      I hope that most Mainers will agree that we should allow ALL Maine families the ability to protect the lives they build together with civil marriage. ALL Maine families should be able to protect the children they raise together with civil marriage, too.

      • Gawd are you defensive. 

        No I am actually not addressing YOUR issue at all.  I am explaining mine.  I am a single person who is without the “1,000 benefits and privileges from our government” that you seek and others enjoy.  These benefits spring from a time when the Nation was under populated, and needed more citizens.  We now have far too many citizens, and government has no justification for their discrimination against me and others of my status.

        The Gay rights movement rode into power in 1969 on the shoulders of the civilrights movement and the anti-Vietnam war protests of which I was a small part.  I still remember cheering the small number of dischevled, couragous, gay marchers who with very small weak voices told Washington D.C. “We’re here we’re queer,  get used to it.”   

        No opposition to gay partnerships here.  just a deep resentment of the civil marriage statute.

        • Anonymous

          I’ve heard this argument before, but I still don’t see what benefits you are being denied by being single.

          You cannot obtain social security survivor benefits for yourself, you’d be too dead to take advantage of them. You have no need for access to military base housing at home while you are an active soldier deployed overseas. Etc, etc.

          What benefits of marriage are you missing out on by being single that you could take advantage of?

          • You cannot obtain social security survivor benefits for yourself
            (or my disabled sister)
            I also have to pay a higher precentage of my income in taxes, can’t designate my brother as “co-holder” of my health care benefits, can’t pass on my wealth tax free,

            It was you who mentioned “over 1,100 benefits and privileges from our government,”  so you know what they are.

    • Anonymous

      Gays want to be treated “differently”?  They just want to marry the person they love.  LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.  That’s asking to be treated “the same.” Not “differently.”

      • Alec Cunningham

        Maybe he’s referring to the fact that we want to be treated differently than the way we have been in the past?  We want to be treated like other free Americans, not like the less-than human freaks people have tried to make us out to be in the past.  More and more, people are seeing that gay and lesbians are just like them.

        • With all due respect, I am not just like you.  I am not “just like” anyone.  I doubt you are either.  EVERYONE is different and thank fate for that. The world would be G.D. boring if we were all the same.

          • Alec Cunningham

            Okay, if you want to take things literally, then yes, you and I are not like each other because we are not each other.  However, my point, and I’m sure you know this, is that gay people want the same as straight people.  Some gays and straights want to marry, some gays and straights don’t.  Some gays and straights want children and some don’t.

            It wasn’t that long ago that many Americans viewed all homosexuals as hedonistic sex-addicts that couldn’t and wouldn’t want to settle down in a stable family situation.  Sure, there are some gays who want nothing to do with families, relationships, of having children, just as there are some straight people who feel the same way.  So, maybe these days people realize that although there ARE some gay men and women who want to live their lives as free single people, there are some gays and lesbians, like some straight people, who want to settle down with a family.  Hence, “gay people are like straight people.”

      • I did not use the word “gays” anywhere in my post.  I did not say OR imply that gays wanted to be treated differently. In fact I have no knowledge of what “gays” want.  I would guess (from the editorial and the posts) that SOME gays want to marry.  I doubt that gays are a single harmonious unit any more than straight people.

        As I pointed out in my post (if you had bothered to read and parse it) many groups in our society are treated “differently”

        • Anonymous

          Tux, my post was a response to “Marks” statement.  FWIW, for me the word “gay” doesn’t have any negative connotation. It merely describes a person’s sexual orientation, just like the word “straight.”   I’m not gay myself, but if folks with a same-sex preference tell me they don’t like the word “gay” or that it is not PC or is derogatory, I’ll gladly quit using it. I meant no offense.

  • Anonymous

    I think they are both brides. When I marry the love of my life here in Maine one day, we will be husbands to each other.

    • Maine2Florida

      Hahahahaha!  I live 20 mins from Orlando, and it still makes me chuckle to hear that.  That speaks a thousands words.  Ya’ll got a looooong way to go. 

      • Anonymous

        Even if the vote fails to establish marriage equality, the US Supreme Court will probably establish immediate nationwide marriage equality in the coming term.  Not long at all…

      • Alec Cunningham

        What does this have to do with Orlando?

        • Maine2Florida

          Have you ever been to gay day in Orlando?  Its pretty wild.  Great party, and lots of over the top antics. Same with Key West most of the year!  LOL! Good times.  So I am saying, I have seen it all. 

          • Alec Cunningham

            It sounds over the top for me, actually.  We will go to Key West at some point, but we like the mellow and laid back scene of St. Petersburg.  But the swimming there on the Gulf is too cold sometimes.

          • Maine2Florida

            Too cold on the gulf?  I love the west ten times better than over here on the east coast.  The scenery is WAY better there. Been to Siesta Key?  If not you better go… best beach in the country.  If you go to Key west, hit up Garden of Eden… fun stuff!  

          • Alec Cunningham

            We were on both coasts last year in April.  4 days in St. Pete and the water was cold.  Then 4 days in Ft. Lauderdale for the gay rodeo and the water there was like a bath tub.
            We’ll be in St. Pete again in April.  Maybe we’ll check out Siesta Key-my boyfriend is pretty familiar with the Tampa Bay area-I’ll see what he says.

          • Maine2Florida

            Ya the sand at siesta is 100 percent quartz crystal… all white and like flour.  Its been rated in the top ten (a few at number 1) for last 10 years by dr beach.  Definitely check it out.  You wouldn’t catch me in the water anywhere in April… way to cold for me!  I make sacrifice for spring break i guess, but that’s it!

      • Anonymous

        I have no problem with my life bringing a smile to your face!

        I do have a problem that my government discriminates against us for civil marriage rights, though!

  • Anonymous

    I don’t get it. This country was founded and our system of laws (the Constitution) was set up primarily by folks who fled Europe because of religious persecution. In Europe they were being forced to practice the State (official) religion, which conflicted with their core beliefs, so they fled to a new country where they could be free to practice their own beliefs. So important was this concept that the FIRST amendment to the Constitution provides for Freedom of Religion. In other words, there is NO state religion here and our laws are not based on the beliefs of any one religion. And people who are not even the least bit religious are free to not even believe at all.

    So, why in the world do the super-religious all of a sudden expect our laws to be governed by THEIR God’s will?

    If your church doesn’t believe in gay marriage, that’s fine. Don’t perform any gay weddings. End of story.

    But don’t impose YOUR beliefs on the rest of us.

    YOUR freedom to practice YOUR religion goes hand-in-hand with our freedom not to be have YOU tell us what to do.

    Suggestion: concentrate on your own personal walk with Christ and perfect that before telling everyone else how to behave.

    • Tedlick Badkey

      RAmen, brother!

      RAmen!

    •  Here is how I see it, Christ, the man (it was almost 300 years after his death man made him a god) had he existed, and assuming the accounts are even partially accurate, was a man who preached love and tolerance above all else. It was a great message. Then the worst thing that ever could have happened, happened. They took that great message and made a religion out of it. A religion full of rigid rules, used to maintain power over people. In that religion, the message of love has been lost. People often ask “What would Jesus do?” I think he would tell the Pope, James Dobson,  Jerry Falwell, and Billy Graham how upset he was that they twisted his message and caused so much harm. SSM is not about any god, it is about equality, and equality is not only right, but love and acceptance of your citizens.

      • Anonymous

        He came to disorganize religion and his follows ignored his message and reorganized religion. The church of today is exactly like the religion of His day that he spoke out against. Perhaps a true follower of Christ is one who never steps foot in a church. 

      • Anonymous

        No, it is not about equality. 

        That is a lie the movement tells people to gain acceptance.

        It is about putting marriage on a level with perversion. 

        • so your marriage is perverse because it was not performed and blessed by the churcj of england ??

    • Anonymous

      It’s not based in religion ultimately.

      It’s based on right and wrong. That is why ALL religions agree that  homosexual practices are wrong  — except in the brainwashed West, where the clergypersons receive fat salaries for spouting the nonsense of the elites.  

      • Anonymous

        What a surprise this must be to the Episcopal church, the Presbyterian Church USA, the United Church of Christ,  numerous Lutheran branches and others who not only welcome gay members, but also ordain gay clergy.

        • Anonymous

          Yes, I was there when they voted for it.

          I voted against it.

          We were sitting under a glass atrium under a clear blue sky.

          After the vote, we sat down to lunch, and out of nowhere, the darkest, angriest clouds you have ever seen rolled in.

          There was loud thunder and lightning which shook the room, and those who had just voted to allow homosexuals to become ministers looked visibly disturbed and shaken. 

          That was the displeasure of Almighty God.

          (Jude 1:7)

          • Anonymous

            And, I guess Hurricane Isaac bearing down on Tampa is God telling the GOP to get their heads out of their, well, you-know-whats?

          • Anonymous

            Indeed it is. 

            “God speaks from a whirlwind.”

          • right we are definetly not in Kansas anymore are we just locked in an asylum ????

          • Anonymous

            So why pick on Florida….SSM isn’t legal there?

          • Maine2Florida

            Its no where near Tampa fool.  Nor is it looking like its gonna be anywhere near it.  How do I know?  Well, I live here in Florida.  Nice inflamed statement though.  

          • Anonymous

            If Fox News says it’s a possible threat to the convention, who am I to argue?  http://www.foxnews.com/weather/2012/08/22/tropical-storm-isaac-poses-potential-threat-for-republican-national-convention/

          • Alec Cunningham

            BAM!  And we all know that hurricanes are unpredictable and can go almost anywhere aside from the current track.

          • florida and it’s weather can only be blamed on geography/ although i would like to blame it on the # of nimrods that live there/ to easy / sort of like blaming the snow in alaska on the polar bears migration 

          • Anonymous

            Monday 2AM according to the National Hurricane Center due west of Tampa in the Gulf of Mexico

            http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/refresh/graphics_at4+shtml/090404.shtml?5-daynl#contents

          • Maine2Florida

            Ya cause those tracks predicted a week ahead of time are always accurate (*sarcasm*).  I am in a DOD secured building, and we get special alerts from several different gov agencies…  Percentages for likelihood of impact and variables of statistical analysis.  Yes Tampa has a chance but not a high probability.  Right now, anywhere in the entire state has the possibility of being directly impacted.  Go ahead and focus on the “Cone of uncertainty” if you would like… its not like you have to prepare for it in any way. 

          • Anonymous

            In your original post you said it wasn’t going to be anywhere near Florida. My post and link demonstrated that based on current projections and scientific models of storm tracks you are wrong.

            I am glad that you live in a nice secure DoD world. But I wouldn’t bet the farm that this storm is going to miss Florida entirely.

          • Maine2Florida

            No I said Tampa… wasn’t going anywhere near tampa.  I lived in the bay area for ten years, including when charlie cleaned us out.  They predicted that was headed for Tampa too, and evacuated everyone south.  Charlie made a direct landfall in charlotte county (where I lived and everyone evacuated to.).  Tampa has been immune to hurricanes for many many decades now…. 1921 was last one I believe.  There is a 1 percent chance of Tampa ever getting hit directly from a hurricane with 75mph winds or greater.  ;) 

          • Anonymous

            Hope you are right. By the way, it doesn’t have to be a direct hit to have major damage.

          • Maine2Florida

            From the 8 hurricanes I have experienced, anything other than a direct hit is mediocre, but you are correct, the potential is there no matter what.  

          • Alec Cunningham

            Irene delayed our trip to Florida last year.  It was ironic that a hurricane in Maine affected our trip to Florida, I thought.  And in 2010 we missed the hurricane in Maine by going to Florida.  Crazy!

          • Alec Cunningham

            Maybe God was angry with YOUR vote.

          • Anonymous

            No, the few people who did God’s will were at peace during the storm.

            Those who voted for it were unsettled and afraid. 

          • Alec Cunningham

            That doesn’t mean he wasn’t angry with your vote.  That’s just your interpretation of the events.

          • Anonymous

            I’m sure it was a complete fabrication.

            Anti-gays always lie.

          • maybe there were shrooms in your tea ????

          • Garth Malcolm Kinney

            Love is Love. God can only bring to loving souls together. Why would i love my Boyfriend soooooo BAD! 

          • no that was a change in the weather patterns / sometimes it rains sometimes the sun shines
            unless you believe some virginal scarfice can bring rain for the drought and make the crops grow???????? oh and yes some people are afraid of thunder & lightening years of living in mud huts !!!!
            pk

          • Anonymous

            And the date of the vote and which denomination was it when you voted voted against it please and thank you.

          • Anonymous

            Is there any truth you will not oppose?

          • Anonymous

            I have told you of God’s wrath against that convention, and still you won’t believe me, an eye witness who saw the thunder and lightning. 

            I was a witness to God’s truth, and now you are rejecting His truth, just as the homosexual underworld rejects the clear doctrine of the Bible regarding their evil deeds.2 Timothy 3:8″Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men corrupted in mind and disqualified regarding the faith.” 

          • Anonymous

            Wouldn’t God’s wrath be better directed at the Democrat National Convention?

            The Repiblican National Convention oppose same sex marriage, they oppose abortion, etc…so why is God’s wrath being directed at the RNC and Tampa?

          • Anonymous

            You do not see the evil in the Republican Party, which worships Mammon instead of God?

          • Anonymous

            So if no natural calamity strikes the DNC Natipnal Convention does that mean God supports SSM?

          • Anonymous

            “Be not deceived…God is not mocked.”

            God is not mocked – He cannot be imposed on, or mocked. He knows what our real character is, and he will judge us accordingly. The word rendered “mocked” (μυκτηρίζω muktērizō), means, properly, to turn up the nose in scorn; hence, to mock, or deride, or insult. The sense is, that God could not be imposed on, or could not be insulted with impunity, or successfully. To mock is, properly:

            (1) To imitate, to mimic: to imitate in contempt or derision.

            (2) to deride, to laugh at, to ridicule.

            (3) to defeat, or to illude, or to disappoint.

            (4) to fool, to tantalize – Webster.

            Here it cannot mean to imitate, or to mimic, but it refers to the principles of the divine administration, and must mean that they could not be treated with contempt, or successfully evaded. They could not hope to illude or impose on God. His principles of government were settled, and they could not impose on him. To what the reference is here, is not perfectly plain. In the connection in which it stands, it seems to refer to the support of the ministers of the gospel; and Paul introduces the general principle, that as a man sows he will reap, to show them what will be the effect of a liberal and proper use of their property. If they made a proper use of it; if they employed it for benevolent purposes; if they appropriated what they should to the support of religion, they would reap accordingly. God could not be imposed on in regard to this. They could not make him think that they had true religion when they were sowing to the flesh, and when they were spending their money in purchasing pleasure, and in luxury and vanity.

            No zeal, however ardent; no prayers, however fervent or long, no professions, however loud, would impose on God. And to make such prayers, and to manifest such zeal and such strong professions, while the heart was with the world, and they were spending their money for every thing else but religion, was mocking God. Alas, how much mockery of God like this still prevails! How much, when people seem disposed to make God believe that they are exceedingly zealous and devoted, while their heart is truly with the world! How many long prayers are offered; how much zeal is shown; how many warm professions are made, as if to make God and man believe that the heart was truly engaged in the cause of religion, while little or nothing is given in the cause of benevolence; while the ministers of religion are suffered to starve; and while the “loud professor” rolls in wealth, and is distinguished for luxury of living, for gaiety of apparel, for splendor of equipage, and for extravagance in parties of pleasure! Such professors attempt to mock God. They are really sowing to the flesh; and of the flesh they must reap corruption.

          • Anonymous

            It was a simple question that was asked SonifBangor.

          • Anonymous

            Well, your hostility and lack of good will is obvious to all.

            That’s not the way we do things here in Maine.

          • Anonymous

            I brought you the message of what I saw at the convention, and you are calling me a liar.

            That is a very wicked thing to do. 

          • Anonymous

            You made a assertive statement that you attended a meeting where you cast a vote and later a storm occurred that you attribute to God. Fine.

            I have asked you nicely to provide the date and denomination so I can fact check.

            You have refused. I have not called you I lier. I don’t need to call you a lier. Your decision not to provide the information requested speaks for me.

          • Anonymous

            Hardly.

            You know full well that there could be other reasons for not disclosing this information.

            Isn’t that true, yes or no?

            And you also know that by implication you have called me a liar. You do not have the courage to openly call me a liar, because even you doubt my innocence in this matter. 

            My prudence in refusing to give the date and place does not prove or disprove the assertion, and you know that as well.  

            Therefore, not only have you borne false witness against me, you have proven yourself to be at the best, highly disingenuous. 

            That is out of place in Maine. 

            And your persistence in asking for proof, despite the fact that you know full well there might be other motives for not revealing this information, shows a lack of good will.

            Are you a man of good will?

            Your badgering is most un-Christian, and I regret to say that others here have accused you of being a troll.

            I don’t know what that means. 

            I seem to remember from childhood that trolls were small creatures who hid under a bridge to attack the innocent.

            What “troll” means in this context, I am not sure. I am not that computer literate. 

            Perhaps it means mean-spirited, at odds against their fellow man, for no reason.

          • Anonymous

            Oh my…I must say that is a valid attempt at a smoke screen to hide behind SonofBangor.

            What possible reas

          • Anonymous

            Oh my…I must say that is a valid attempt at a smoke screen to hide behind SonofBangor but like all smoke screens it blows away with just a bit of breeze.

            What possible reason would you have for not providing the date and denomination where you voted. I would think that a) you would want to expose the non-believing church, b) you would want to expose the false teachings of this denomination and c) you would want to expose false leaders to public ridicule.

            But you don’t and hide behind a smoke screen of there are “reasons” for not doing this.

            I haven’t called you a liar. I made an observation that y not providing the date and denomination of the meeting you cast doubt on the honesty of your post. I am trying hard not to call you names or personally attack you.

            For the record I really don’t care what others say about me. They can call me names or engage in personal attacks and if you notice they normally give up since I rarely respond to such attacks.

            Why you continue to refuse to provide a date and denomination name is beyond me. It would either prove or disprove your post. Why refuse to e pose the false teachings of this denomination and the leaders that provide the Biblical guidance?

          • Anonymous

            We will leave it to the readers to decide who is telling the truth. 

          • Anonymous

            Edit

          • Alec Cunningham
          • Anonymous

            God is opposed to the wickedness of this entire nation. 

          • Anonymous

            And God told you this when?

          • Anonymous

            All right then, we will leave it at that. 

            It remains an unsubstantiated assertion, not a falsehood. 

            Those of good will believe me, and those of corrupt mind and ruined intellect will not. 

            By the way, I think it best if we do not allow people who post here to badger others into revealing personal information.

          • Anonymous

            Until you post the date of the meeting were you voted against the denominational motion and the denomination involved it is not “a truth”. Until you do that they are just words with no weight.

          • Anonymous

            The truth does not depend on your opinion. 

            For you, it is a doubtful proposition, because you oppose the Holy Spirit. 

          • Anonymous

            Men of good will will not doubt that I was there and saw the thunder and lightning.

          • Anonymous

            Well since you out right refuse to answer the question we can only conclude that your presence at this meeting was a falsehood and did not occur.

          • Anonymous

            2 Timothy 3:8″Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men corrupted in mind and disqualified regarding the faith.” 
            You lack the courage to call me a liar. 

          • Anonymous

            I am attempting to follow the rules by not name callIng or engaging in personal attacks.

            Besides I don’t have to, you are doing it to yourself by not providing the date and denomination of this meeting.

          • Anonymous

            You will forgive me, sir.

            I would like to continue this discussion,  in the hope that you would be led to the truth of the Gospel, but I have to go on to edit remarks by a physician who visited Chernobyl and who is trying to help out with the Fukushima disaster.

            Perhaps you will call that a lie as well.

            I will pray for you. 

          • Anonymous

            Your refusal to provide a date and denomination name convicts you SonofBangor.

            I would think that you would want to expose the false teachings of this denomination and their leaderships team to protect other Christians from falling under their influence.

            Would you not warn a fellow traveler of the roving gangs that might rob them and murder them if they took the wrong road?

            Would you not warn a fellow diner of the rancid meat that would make them sick if they ate it?

            So why are you not warning your fellow Christians of this false Christian denomination by providing them with the name of the denomination and the date they look away from Gods teachings?

            Do you not care about your fellow Christian traveller?

          • Alec Cunningham

            Do YOU eat Jif chocolate flavored hazelnut spread?  It’s real good.

          • Maine2Florida

            Too funny!

          • Alec Cunningham

            We need to find common ground and I think I’ve discovered it!

          • Maine2Florida

            Holy matrimony, under Jif, for love and eternity.  LMFAO! 

          • Alec Cunningham

            We’ve found the solution!  Hooray!!!!!

            (Notice that he didn’t answer the question!)

          • Maine2Florida

            Maybe he’s “anti-Jif”  Its a growing sentiment these days. 

          • Alec Cunningham

            Okay, that’s just too much.  I think I’m pretty tolerant but I have to draw the line!!!

          • Maine2Florida

            Sorry.  Did I cross the line?  Soon we will see Jif being persecuted in the streets.  Thats gonna be a dark day for America. Bloomberg will have to ban it.  Why are our comments getting smaller and smaller here… are they insignificant now?  LOL!  I wonder if I keep typing long enough if it will appear as letter by letter going down the screen.  Ha ha.. wow I am ADD bad. 

          • Anonymous

            Even if I were to give the place and date, you would still not believe me. 

            You want to call me a liar, but you lack the courage to do so. 

          • Anonymous

            I want to check the dates of the meeting against the official record of the denomination to see if they voted on any thing close to what you posted.

            Then I will check the historical weather record for that date.

            If they don’t match then you posted a falsehood.

            But since you refuse to post the date and denomination no one can check it. Why do you refuse to post that information?

            Why are you afraid to back up your claim with documented facts?

      • Alec Cunningham

        Really.  So, it’s always wrong and those who believe it to be okay are brainwashed into believing so.  What a strategy you’ve got there!  You’ll always be right!

      • obviously you are not aware that marriage as arranged based on property, so that each family might have higher value based on which other family you married into also might have more workers or slves in some cases/ none of this was based on our niave belief of the perfect marriage between a man and a woman in love / that was never an issue / it was all about increasing the property value of the family/ women were property/ children were property.
        look @ historical facts
         pk

    • yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes/ pay attention to your own business not anyone else’s
      thank you 

  • Anonymous

    I personally will be voting no, of course there will be those that say I don’t have a right to voice my opinion on the ballot because my opinion varies from theirs, and I will get called the intolerant one.

    Funny how liberal minds work.

    • Alec Cunningham

      You seem to know it all, huh?  I wouldn’t make that assumption that you don’t have a right to voice your opinion.  In fact, I don’t know who WOULD say that.  However, I might call you intolerant depending on your reasons for casting your vote against allowing me to marry the man I love.
      At the ballot box, though-that’s an interesting twist.  I think that we should not be playing this game of voting on civil rights, however, since WE brought it to the voting booth, no one can say that no one else hasn’t the right to voice their opinion on the matter at the ballot box.  We may not agree with it, but it’s your opinion that people of the same sex shouldn’t have the right to marry the person they love.

      • Anonymous

        If it gets defeated in the ballot box so be it, If it passes so be it, democracy in action. You are entitled to your viewpoint and I am entitled to mine. I do believe in the right for you to have this on the ballot even though I disagree with it. Not as intolerant as some here that post in opposition to my posts am I?

        • Anonymous

          So, if a majority of people vote to dissolve your marriage and prevent your from ever marrying, you would be perfectly fine with that?  After all, that would be “democracy in action.”

          • Anonymous

            Hetrosexual marriage has been going on for thousands of years, I think anyone with a little common sense can see that your compairing apples to oranges.

          • Anonymous

            Nonsense, in this hypothetical situation, a majority voted to take away your marriage.  That is, as you said, democracy in action.  If you can vote on someone else’s marriage, why can’t I vote on yours?  Unless, of course, “democracy in action” only applies when you are the one taking away the rights as opposed to the person whose rights are being taken away.

          • Anonymous

            If you can vote away our rights, we can vote away your rights.

    • Tedlick Badkey

      No… you’re intolerant for wanting to actively harm Maine citizens out of your own bigotry.

      Funny how wingnut minds work.

      • Anonymous

        “actively harm Maine citizens”? I am taking nothing from anyone, The vote isn’t to take away anything. It simply asks if I approve, I don’t.
         If it passes it passes but I still have my right to vote the way I want. Unless you want to harm the Maine citizens who are opposed to it.

        • Anonymous

          “The vote isn’t to take away anything.”

          Anti-gays always lie.

        • Alec Cunningham

          It does more than ask if you approve.  It is asking if you will allow.  That vote has a much farther reach than simply saying that you don’t approve-by voting no you are actively working against your fellow Mainers.  You have that right, of course.
          In 2009, though, the vote was, in fact, to take away something.

        • Tedlick Badkey

          You already took marriage from gay citizens in Maine… now you actively try to keep them away from people.

          You’re not really that dumb, are you?

          No one wants to harm you… but the reverse is not true.

    • Anonymous

      And yet you think it is fine to hinder people with the law simply because you disagree with them. Funny how your hypocrisy works.

      • Anonymous

        Yet you think it’s fine to rob me of my opinion and vote because you disagree with me,  Funny how your hypocrisy works.

        • Anonymous

          You don’t have a right to vote on someone else’s rights.

          • Anonymous

            I guess we need to take this one off of the ballot then, no one has a right to vote on it.

          • Anonymous

            Sure, take it off the ballot and let same sex couples legally marry.

          • Alec Cunningham

            Yeah-that’s the best option!

          • Alec Cunningham

            Well, I have to say that this time they do because we brought it to the voting booth.

          • Anonymous

            I do think that it is very sad that a vote to decide whether or not a group of people get certain rights is even necessary.

          • Alec Cunningham

            I agree-but it’s their game that we have to play.  The governor and the Maine supreme court are not our friends and we need the presidential election.  So, it is either 2012 or see what happens before 2016.

        • Anonymous

          No one is taking your opinion away from you. Feel free to have whatever opinion you want.

          You’re the one who is taking from others. You’re voting to take away rights from gay people because you disagree with them. That’s robbing them of quite a bit. And that’s the real hypocrisy.

    • Anonymous

      Is there anything more pathetic than an anti-gay whining that his intended victims are “intolerant” of his stated intention to vote to hurt us and subvert the United States Constitution?

      • Anonymous

        Gay marriage has never been part of the Constitution nor was it allowed or even considered when that document was created.

        • Anonymous

          Loving v. Virginia “Marriage is a fundamental right”.  Guess what, rights are protected by the 14th Amendment.

        • Alec Cunningham

          Women voting wasn’t allowed or even considered when the constitution was written.  Are you saying that the constitution is NOT fluid and should only be interpreted literally?  That whatever is not explicitly mentioned in it should not be allowed?

    • Anonymous

      You are intolerant because you are voting to deny a group of our citizens the same rights and privileges as other Americans because you do not see that they are worthy of the same protection under the law as you and others can enjoy. 

      Your vote is an attempt to force others to live by your belief system. It is unAmerican to try to force one group of Americans to live by how another group of Americans tells them that they should live. Imagine if we were voting on whether or not to allow Christians to go to church. 

      • Anonymous

        So there is no tolerance for a differing opinion from yours is there?

        • Anonymous

          The anti-gay Hate Cult NOM violated Maine campaign finance and disclosure laws to THROW the previous anti-gay Hate Vote.  Should we tolerate the criminal activity anti-gays committed?

          • Anonymous

            In my opinion no criminal activity should be tolerated.

            What is with Anti-Gay and Homophobic statements? I’m not anti-anybody and I’m sure as hell not scared of anyone.

          • Anonymous

            You are against same sex couples having the same rights as opposite sex couple, sounds anti-gay to me.

          • Anonymous

            Anti-gays routinely deny they are anti-gay.

            Anti-gays always lie.

    • Garth Malcolm Kinney

      I can “see” where you are coming with this comment. This is the fact that I live in Northern Maine. I lived here most of my life. Two years ago i came out to some people then the world Most everyone loved me and my choices. The others saw it a different way, I am not ashamed that to tell those who I knew didnt agree. i’m almost 20 and yes I know my true path. I’m not sure if you comment is due to how you were brought up or due to some types  of christian views. Its about a law and the right for someone to love another person. Gender is only Gender, Love is happiness. Ik i might be blahing about my life story, but do know this. I go to church and understand that God LOVES me and LOVES that maybe I found my True LOVE. If I am not mistaken God is the only on to make two people Love. Also, I hope this can touch you in some way, i just want to be married to the Man I Love. You married the man or women you loved, why can’t I? One more thing, I don’t think you don’t have a right to your opinion, we all have them and we are all can have them. 

    • oh just go ahed and vote as if it will be counted !!!!

  • Anonymous

    If churches and religions want to dictate and add laws then they really need to change their tax status from exempt to owe. Sorry you can’t have both.

    • Tedlick Badkey

      Bingo!

      Give that man a cigar!

  • Anonymous

    They should be able to marry it will hurt no one . No one has yet said how gays getting married will hurt marriage

    • Anonymous

      We ask anti-gays that all the time, and all we get in response is more lies.

      • Garth Malcolm Kinney

        Dude, I am gay and I’m getting annoyed that you keep saying Anti-Gay. 

  • Anonymous
    • Alec Cunningham

      This is really sad, but pretty melodramatic.  I couldn’t get through it.  The violins and the slow pace made it lose the impact it was looking for.  I don’t think anyone who doesn’t support SSM would sit through that.

      • Anonymous

        We don’t expect to be able to get through to the few remaining anti-gays.  Psychologists report that the most commonly observed symptom of the mental disorder homophobia is an inability of those so afflicted to accept documentation that contradicts their deep-seated phobia and hatred of LGBT Americans.
         

    • Tedlick Badkey

      Absolutely spot on wollydevil…

      THIS is what the knuckle-dragging mouth breathers that stand in favor of harming Maine citizens don’t understand.

      They don’t care. It’s outside their petty little lives, so like Tom’s parents, they just shut it out, and ignore the harm and pain they cause.

      The worst part is the reality that even with wills, the family could have overturned it all in court… because even a will is not as legally binding as a marriage certificate.

      Thanks for posting that.

  • jdtex

    Give the homosexual couples their little legal piece of paper saying they are ‘married’.  We all know that in a biblical sense, they are not married, but it might keep them quiet a little while.

    • Anonymous

      Sure, there are some really rotten people that say they are Christians and that tell shameful lies about LGBT Americans, but what about all the welcoming and affirming Christians?  These denominations have married same gender couples in 7 US States and the District of Columbia:

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

      Other individual churches are disregarding their denomination’s homophobia and are marrying same gender couples, such as Baptist churches.

      These and many other denominations reject the hate speech inserted in the bible to hurt LGBT people.  Modern Biblical scholars have proven the Bible was intentionally mistranslated relatively recently in order to provide “Biblical cover” for then-rising levels of homophobia.  For example, the word “homosexual” didn’t even exist until 1850.
       
      This list is all the source I need to know that the Bible has been messed with to make it look like it supports homophobia.

      • Anonymous

        Liberal clergymen are the paid lackeys of a wicked and corrupt nation, a nation with a 60% divorce rate.

        Many clergymen from liberal denominations are themselves homosexuals, and the same for the lesbian priestesses. What about Bob Carlson? 

        Why didn’t you list him?

        The good reverend Bob Carlson was the most influential advocate of “gay” marriage in Maine.

        • Anonymous

          The highest divorce rate in America is among EVANGELICALS.

          Somehow I figured you would ATTACK the Freedom of Religion of the many major Christian and Jewish denominations that reject your fake Bible passages.

        • Alec Cunningham

          “Priestesses”?  Good grief, I didn’t know we were talking about ancient Egypt.  In any case, Mr. Carlson is dead, Mr. Carlson was NOT the most influential advocate of same sex marriage, and the fact that someone like him might have been supportive of SSM doesn’t mean that we who are also supportive condone what he did.
          Next, you’ll be calling us all communists who like to kill Angelina Jolie’s children in 1920s Los Angeles…

    • Alec Cunningham

      Exactly right.  What you think of my marriage really doesn’t concern me.  But I do appreciate you letting me have my little legal piece of paper.  Thank you.

      • Anonymous

        I always get a kick out of the people who say that legalizing same sex marriage is forcing them to “accept my lifestyle”.  The sooner those people realize that same sex couples don’t care about what they have to say about their relationship as long as they get the same legal rights, the better.

    • Anonymous

      Thank you for your support! We absolutely should allow ALL Maine families the ability to get the important protections of civil marriage.

  • Anonymous

    No government can grant a legal right to marriage, for the simple reason that the word “marriage” has always implied a differentiation of  the sexes. 

    Any law which violates natural law and reason, and which does not uphold the principle of correctness is null and void. 

    To allow persons of the same sex to “marry” you must change the definition of marriage, thereby destroying the institution of marriage. 

    It is a measure of the depths of irrationality to which our corrupt and crime-ridden society has sunk that the Bangor Daily News would run a photo of two brides and claim that this constitutes a marriage.

    This is not an example of a government allowing two people to marry, it is a case of a mad government licensing perversion and calling it “marriage.”

    Small wonder that the elite of Bangor kept company with Bob Carlson!

    NO GOVERNMENT HAS THE RIGHT TO LICENSE PERVERSION

    • Alec Cunningham

      Where did you say you studied constitutional law?  I think I missed that….

      • Anonymous

        Please speak to the issue.

        Should a law which is morally wrong be considered valid? 

        • Anonymous

          Most Americans recognize anti-gays are IMMORAL because they are trying to HURT people the don’t know and who have never done anti-gays ANY harm.  This is why anti-gays are not considered valid.

        • Alec Cunningham

          Wow-you want ME to speak to the issue?  Well, I thought I was when I foolishly assumed that you had studied constitutional law and knew what you were talking about.
          Anyway, I don’t consider the law that allows two people who love each other to marry each other morally wrong.

          • Anonymous

            Think of SonofBangor like the Westboro Baptist Church.  Giving him more attention just makes things worse.  Ignore him and hopefully he will go away.

      • Anonymous

        Jerry Falwell set up a “law school” where nutcases are taught the various legal fantasies expressed above.

    • Anonymous

      Sonof, we know anti-gays in Maine and from away committed criminal acts to throw the previous anti-gay Hate Vote.  Will YOU be committing a similar criminal act in the hope you will be able to continue to FORCE your dirty “beliefs” onto all Mainers?

      • Anonymous

        Defending marriage is forcing a dirty belief on the people of Maine?

        Who is forcing the dirty beliefs here? 

        • Anonymous

          We all know the Maine Ethics Commission caught the anti-gay Hate Cult NOM violating our campaign finance and disclosure laws.  NOM’s appeal of their conviction was rejected by the US Supreme Court.  Thank you for confessing you are planning to violate our laws in order to poison our political process AGAIN.

          But will anti-gays’ criminal acts meant to throw the vote succeed again?  Not likely.  Perhaps the Maine Ethics Commission should be investigating YOU.

          • Anonymous

            Please stop the hate. 

          • Alec Cunningham

            No, YOU stop the hate!!!!  YOU first!!!!!

          • Anonymous

            Five exclamation points, Joe?

            Five?

          • Alec Cunningham

            I’m sorry, did you want more?  I have an endless supply!

          • Anonymous

            Pot, meet kettle…

          • Anonymous

            Please stop trying to poison our political process.

        • Tedlick Badkey

          Your only defending your own ignorance and pathetic nature, sweetcheeks.

        • Anonymous

          It’s clear you have some deep issues that you take out on homosexuals here.

          But the truth is that committed, loving couples in Maine are not “dirty” when they wish to protect the life they are building together. Your hang-ups with our sexuality is your problem… the fact that our government treats us unequally under the law is a problem with adhering to the ideals of our Constitution, and we are seeking to correct it!

    • Anonymous

      If marriage has always implied a differentiation of the sexes, why do we not call one side of a modular home male, and the other female? They have a “marriage wall” after all.

    • Tedlick Badkey

      No religion has the right to governance of US citizens.

      Iran is waiting on you, hon.

  • Anonymous

    In same sex “marriages”  one partner plays the role of wife, while the other partner plays the role of husband.

    This is called couple-ism, and it is a form of mental illness.

    Take a look at the photo, and you will see that the masculine-looking lesbian plays the role of the dominant male.

    The BDN wants to talk about hearts and flowers, but let’s talk about reality.

    • Anonymous

      You are so wrong try some thing else

    • Anonymous

      “[…] one partner plays the role of wife, while the other partner plays the role of husband.”

      How much time a day do you spend fantasizing about what loving, committed same gender legally married American couples do in private?  Scientists have proven why you have all these fantasies about “gay sex”:

      “Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.”

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014

      • Anonymous

        “The BDN wants to talk about hearts and flowers, but let’s talk about […]”

        Yes, we see what you want to talk about, and I for one wish you would take your fantasies elsewhere.

    • Alec Cunningham

      Oh, yeah, that.  I was thinking about that last night while I was playing the role of husband and mowing the lawn.  Later I was playing the role of wife and did the laundry.
      What happens in a straight marriage where the woman plays the role of the dominant male (husband) and the man plays the role of the submissive female (wife).  Is that also a mental illness?
      Which one of these women, by the way, do you think is the male?

      • Anonymous

        I’m guessing that in SonofBangor’s marriage the roles are very clear. He plays boorish pig and she plays woman who fantasizes about living a totally different life.

  • Anonymous

    It’s very sad to see SonofBangor reveal how deeply disconnected he is with simple reality.  The 2010 US Census reported there were then over 131,000 legally married American same gender couples, and that was before New York State established marriage equality through the legislative process.  If the “definition of marriage” was changed, that already happened in 2004.

    Actually, ALL Americans have a Constitutionally protected “fundamental right” to marry the person of our CHOICE, which the US Supreme Court established in its 1967 “Loving vs. Virginia” ruling.  Several US State high courts have cited that ruling as precedent for same gender couples.

    Please spare us this nonsense anti-gays call “natural law,” that’s just anti-gay fantasies.

  • Anonymous

    Marraige of any kind is not a Right.
    A right does not need permission from ANYBODY.
    Get a clue.

    • Alec Cunningham

      Really?  So the government has never withheld rights from people?

      What a circle!  “Let the people vote!”  Well, the people are voting and now THAT is being used as a reason why we shouldn’t have this right.

      • Anonymous

        Yes the Government does and many times should limit a right. BUT NO GOVERNMENT GRANTS A RIGHT. the only thing a government, any government, can grant is a priviledge. Our stupid legal system notwithstanding.
        If people want to vote someone the priviledge of marrying their same sex lover, their dog, their sibling, an eight year; old fine.,BUT that dos not make it a right!

        • Anonymous

          Same nasty hate speech, same dogged ignorance of the Proper Rule of Law as established in the United States Constitution.

          It’s so sad seeing anti-gays trying to SUBVERT the CONSTITUTION.

          • Anonymous

            I could not give a dam* about what two people do to one another, what I hate is people working to destroy the only truly free nation in the world and those that are not smart enough to tell when it is happening.
            I agree that you are ignorant of anything in the US Constitution that some “liberal” hasnt fed to you.
            See I can be as hateful as your type even if I usually try to avoid the venom.

    • Anonymous

      Get a copy of “Loving vs. Virginia.”

      • Anonymous

        I can not imagine that anyone posting here does not know the premise of your proof. but the court was and is wrong.
        Yes the Government does and many times should limit a right. BUT NO GOVERNMENT GRANTS A RIGHT. the only thing a government, any government, can grant is a priviledge. Our stupid legal system notwithstanding.If people want to vote someone the priviledge of marrying their same sex lover, their dog, their sibling, or an eight year old; fine, BUT that dos not make it a right!

        • Anonymous

          Comparing loving, committed same gender American couples to incest, sex with a dog or criminal child sexual assault is hate speech, nothing more.

          Your nasty opinion on “Loving vs. Virginia” is completely irrelevant.  Many US State High Courts have held it IS PRECEDENT for marriage equality for same gender couples.

          • Anonymous

            Some courts hold that the Constitution is irrevavent too. BFD
            I madse no comparison, I said I did not care what people vote for against. Some things are none of my freaking business and I don’t care.

  • Anonymous

    “Lord, teach us….”

    “What will the end times look like?”

    “It will be as in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah or as in the days of Noah when they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage…so shall the day of the Son of Man be.”

    • Anonymous

      Are you a member of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas? 

    • Tedlick Badkey

      Your mythology is meaningless little one…

      Totally meaningless.

  • Anonymous

    To a Chinese person, this is a particularly disgusting photo.

    The woman with the big arms looks like a man, and it is clear there will be no offspring produced to worship the ancestors at the temple. 

    Only brain-washed Americans would like this photo.

    • Anonymous

      How many people commit sins every day an you are one of them to

    • Anonymous

      You sound just like the KKK an there hatered toward  colored people

    • Anonymous

      Just HOW MUCH TIME already today have you spent fantasizing about what this adorable couple do in private?  I understand some supposedly “heterosexual” men fantasize about “lesbian sex” a great deal.

      • Maine2Florida

        About these two… none.   The two I had last weekend… alot.  ;) Has nothing to do with marriage though, sooooo I don’t see your point. 

        • Anonymous

          The point is we are all tired of anti-gays posting their sexual fantasies here.

          • Maine2Florida

            Anti- gays?  Hmmmm maybe you are just anti straight.  You hate filled mongol. Stop discriminating against people that don’t share your views.   

          • Anonymous

            Anti-gays always stoop to making such vicious personal attacks.

    • Alec Cunningham

      I don’t know what photo you’re looking at, but I see two dames, both with ample cleavage.
      Are you also an expert on Chinese culture besides the U.S. Constitution?

      • Anonymous

        What do you want to wager that SonofBangor aint exactly a keeper himself?

    • Anonymous

      I see 2 hotties..

    • Anonymous

      To be honest, you do not strike me as someone particularly knowledgeable about other cultures.

  • Anonymous

    My compliments to the editor of the Bangor Daily News.

    This ridiculous photo of the beefy Chinese “bride”  has really brought out the lunacy of the homosexual rights movement today.

    Only a photo of Corporal Klinger could have done more. 

    So, thanks! 

    This is a classic. 

    • Anonymous

      Beefy? You’re hateful.

      • Anonymous

        It’s hateful to call a woman ‘beefy?’

        OK, Tinker Bell here has unusually large arms for a Chinese woman.

        • Alec Cunningham

          What experience do you have with Chinese women?  Do you know that there are multiple ethnicities in China?  There isn’t one standard type of Chinese woman.

          • Anonymous

            Of course there is just one Chinese standard. Just like there is one “gay lifestyle.” What a tool.

        • Anonymous

          Are thin arms a requisite for marriage? Because guess what — 2/3 of this country is overweight and 1/3 is obese. Wanna start nullifying all marriages with one or two beefy spouses? Get started, you have a lot of work to do.

    • Anonymous

      So how much time today have you spent fantasizing about what that adorable couple do in private? 

    • Alec Cunningham

      What stereotypes some people have!

      Now you’re saying that not only must women act a certain way, but they must also look a certain way and have a specific body type to be normal.
      How did you get to be this way?

  • Maine2Florida

    This debate is so old.  Give it up already.  If the people of Maine already voted it down, let them be.  Stop trying to force people to change their moral fiber and change the societies they were raised in.  If this is a matter of “Equal Rights” then work on receiving those rights in your domestic partnership thingy and leave Maine people to the decision they already made in 2009.  You are only making those same people even more intolerant of your lifestyle, and inciting more hate and discontent.  

    Even the people of Florida, who are elbow to elbow with everyday gay and lesbian people, don’t recognize any same sex partnership, civil unions, or registries, and you are trying to force a rural state like Maine to recognize it?  Your lifestyles have been accepted by most younger people these days (myself included), but talk about giving an inch and taking a mile…. just effing relax and let time work its magic.  All this whining and crying about equal rights is getting old.  You have more rights than the average american white male as it is… I punch you in the nose in a bar fight you are protected under federal law as a hate crime… I don’t get that.  Affirmative action… I don’t get that.  Special rights… I don’t get those.  THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS EQUAL RIGHTS.  Get over it.  

    • Anonymous

      Homophobia is NOT “moral fiber,” it is a mental disorder.

      LGBT Americans will NEVER accept second-class citizenship, no matter how times the few remaining anti-gays suggest we do so.

      And you FORGET, your dirty GOP’s platform calls for NO recognition of same gender couples’ relationships.  MOST Americans get it that means loving, committed long-term couples are SEPARATED from each other in hospitals.  This is why 57-59% of all Americans support immediate, nationwide MARRIAGE EQUALITY.

      When you claim there’s no such thing as equal rights, the only thing you accomplish is to remind normal, non-homophobic Americans how dishonest and downright UNAMERICAN anti-gays are.

      • Maine2Florida

        Hey cry baby… I’m not anti-gay.  You can call  me names and pass judgement all you want.  My gay friends would call you ignorant.  If most Americans wanted immediate same sex marriage, it would exist already.  Second class citizens???  You said that not me… I actually said the opposite.  Your lifestyle is accepted by most is what I said.  Your problem is that you can’t see anyone else’s points but your own.  I agree you should have the same befits as married couples… under a civil union law.  If you weren’t so stuck on changing the institution of marriage on a legal or religious level you would see that most would agree with a law giving you those rights under a different name or institution.  Its like trying to tell tell ups to start carrying fedex’s mail… aint gonna happen.  Be your own person.  Have your own civil unions. Do your own thing. 

        • Alec Cunningham

          Hahahah-“cry baby”!  Anyone who starts using that in a discussion losing all credibility!
          What I want to know is what sort of gay friends do you have that would call those points ignorant?  I wonder how comfortable they are voicing their opinions around you-you don’t seem very tolerant of differing opinions on this topic.
          I know some gay people who are perfectly happy with the way things are.  They’re content to keep quiet and happily receive what they’re given.  They didn’t do anything to help defeat question 1 in 2005 but I’m sure they’re glad that they can’t be fired or evicted because they’re gay.  And I’m sure they’ll be happy when they are able to marry the person they love when we win.  Didn’t blacks have a word for those sorts?

          • Maine2Florida

            Tolerant?  Yes, they are tolerant.  They understand that not everyone shares the same views.  Ignorant… yes that is what they would call you for being so hateful towards people that don’t share the same view.  That is, in fact, what they have had to deal with for so long.  I am guessing that you just don’t have any common sense.  Its hard for you to accept the fact that a person (me) can be single, not gay, have gay friends, and not bothered by the gay lifestyle reject your view on gay marriage.  Sorry bub, but your view is not the only view.  In fact, if you pull your head out, you will see an entirely different view.     

          • Anonymous

            Honestly, the way you talk, it is more surprising that any gay person would want to be around you, not that a straight person has gay friends.  Do your gay “friends” know that you do not think they should have the same rights that you have? 

          • Alec Cunningham

            You must be new here, brah.  I know and understand that not everyone has the same view.  You, however, are especially rude in your opinions so when we react to the manner in which you write them, we are accused of being intolerant of your view.
            Nah, I don’t have any common sense.  You got me!

          • Maine2Florida

            No brah… I am not new here.  Ya I can be rude.  My one post was not rude or mean one bit.  After that, all the blowback, ya dam straight ima swing back.  Never been one to back down from anyone.  Real talk.

          • Anonymous

            What is this frigging “gay lifestyle” you talk on and on about? I feel cheated because none of my gay friends do anything out of the ordinary.

          • Maine2Florida

            Good grief, you know what I effing mean.  If you don’t understand the difference between a gay lifestyle, and a straight lifestyle, let me mail you an anatomy book.  Theres a difference their bub.  Noone here (not me anyway) is saying its wrong,  its just different in your bedroom than mine. Get it? Lol!

          • Anonymous

            But it’s perfect okay to sleep with two partners at once?  And even brag about it as if it makes you more of a man?  Disgusting.

          • Maine2Florida

            Wasn’t bragging, I was making a point that I am not “anti-gay” which ya’ll keep saying.  I have never been anti gay.  Disgusting?  hmmmm more judgement.  I never said anything about your sexual preference being disgusting.  Keep up the double standard why dont ya.

          • Anonymous

            Help me understand how taking two women to bed at the same time makes you “not anti-gay.” Wait, nevermind, I really don’t want to know what you do in bed. Or what else two consenting adults do.

          • Maine2Florida

            Hahahaha!   Thanks for not making me go into detail!  lol!  Tell me IYAM, what makes me anti-gay to you?  

          • Anonymous

            Not supporting SSM. And sprinkling loaded (anti-gay) language into your posts. Talking about “the gay lifestyle” and making other stereotypical remarks/slams. 

          • Maine2Florida

            Oh please… its such a touchy subject you have to tip-toe around to not offend anyone.  Sorry, not a tip-toer (whatever that is).  I am straight forward and to the point.  Stereotypical?  OMG, I have been labeled from the first post, in which I was sticking up for both sides.  Again, you have misjudged me my friend.  Ya gotta let go of the anger to see not everyone that doesn’t agree with everything you say is not “anti-gay”, just different in opinion.  

          • Alec Cunningham

            Well, *I* am waiting for the details!!!!  :oP

          • Maine2Florida

            LMFAO!  

          • Alec Cunningham

            I didn’t realize that sexual activity was a “lifestyle.”   You learn something new every day!

          • Maine2Florida

            It can be in vegas… bunny ranch for instance?  ;) 

        • Anonymous

          No one is trying to change the religious meaning of marriage. Only the civil consequences the law has attached to marriage. I don’t understand how letting two committed men (or women) marry affects your marriage.

          Just my personal opinion, but for someone who professes to not be anti-gay, you sure some across as filled with hate or is it fear ?) of anyone who is not exactly like you.

          • Maine2Florida

            Funny I see the same from you ( “you sure some across as filled with hate or is it fear ? of anyone who is not exactly like you.”).  I didn’t say anything about religion.  How do you know my religion?  Maybe I am not.  I did post that i slept with 2 women at the same time last weekend, so if anything you should assume i am not.  Are you really trying to categorize me?  Good luck.  I am in  no ones pocket.  You are more in the pocket of running with an anit-straight popularity contest.  Honestly I could care less if you marry your faquing dog… I just hate to see anyone one try and force anyone else into something they dont like, and then condemn them for having their opinion.  

          • Alec Cunningham

            You know, I REALLY love that new chocolate hazelnut spread from Jif!  It’s so tasty and cheaper than Nutella!  It’s (sort of) good for you, too!  It’s in a glass jar, too, which is sort of odd these days…

          • Maine2Florida

            Its good.  I like it too.

          • Alec Cunningham

            I think I just ate too much.  I couldn’t stop with the Ritz crackers…just couldn’t stop!

          • Maine2Florida

            I like it on wheat thins!

          • Alec Cunningham

            Hmmm..that sounds good.  Sometimes the Ritz crackers are too fragile for that heavy slop!  I’ll try that!

          • Maine2Florida

            You can always nuke the nutella/Jiff for a few seconds to soften it up… seems to work ok.  

          • Anonymous

            “If you weren’t so stuck on changing the institution of marriage on a legal or religious level…”  Those are your exact words. So, yes, you DID say something about religion.

          • Maine2Florida

            Right… not about my religion. So again… you are so stuck in your own little opinion that noone else’s matter.  That my friend, is called narrow-minded.  Keep on keepin on.  Good luck with your marriage thing.  I have things to do… and could care less to try and offer my opinion anymore.  Fight your fight buddy.  Peace out.

          • Anonymous

            Yes, to stick up for a group of people, a group I’m not even a member of, because I see them treated like second-class citizens, yes, that makes me narrow-minded.  It’s a label I’ll wear proudly. 

          • Anonymous

            “I did post that i slept with 2 women at the same time last weekend”

            No, that was some other anti-gay poster.

          • Maine2Florida

            No that was me.

          • Anonymous

            A real piece of work. Of course sleeping with multiple partners doesn’t threaten the sanctity of the institution (marriage) upon which our very society rests.

          • Anonymous

            “marry your faquing dog…”

            Again you tell us you want to marry a dog!

          • Maine2Florida

            there ya go… couldn’t see a point if it stuck you in the eye.

          • Anonymous

            I already sleep with mine. I am probably not going to marry him unless we decide to have children. 

          • Anonymous

            Someone please educate me on how the State of Maine issuing a marriage license to two gays has anything to do with Maine2Florida?  How exactly does the fact that a wedding can now take place even affect Maine2Florida, must less “force Maine2Florida into something he doesn’t like?”  Does he think he has to attend the ceremony? Send a present?

        • Anonymous

          Anti-gays commonly deny they are anti-gay these days.  No one will be fooled by that silly denial.

        • Anonymous

          You sure do sound as if you are anti gay.  You also need to learn about marriage customs and laws through the ages.  My guess is that you will not bother to do this and will remain in your own particular prejudice.

          • Maine2Florida

            What does anti-gay mean?  Does it mean that I oppose gay marriage, or that I don’t like gays?  Cause there is a big difference there. 

          • Anonymous

            It means that you are against full equal rights for the lesbian / gay community and that you actively work against them as you are doing here on these threads. That makes you anti-gay.  It does not mean that you need to agree.  For the record and for the last time,  you working against others rights is simply not okay.  

          • Maine2Florida

            I am for the rights on both sides, legally and personally.  That IS the whole problem you know.  That IS why there is even a debate… because BOTH sides have an issue with the other.  No one side is more valid as the other to me… I can see BOTH sides as I am completely not involved in marriage or being gay.  So you are again wrong.  I am not anti-gay.  I am NOT anti-marriage. Yes, if you attack me I will attack back.  If a black man calls me a cracker, I will use the same kind of language back.  Just how I am.  No that is not a good trait, but it is what I am.  

    • Alec Cunningham

      “Let time work it’s magic”?

      Will time magically allow me to marry my boyfriend?  We just have to sit back and let it happen?  Huh!  Who knew!  How long do we wait?  I hope it happens before we die.  I wonder if anyone’s allowed to work for this during this magical time and who is allowed?  Probably the elves and fairies, I guess.
      More rights….if you punch me in the nose because I’m gay, then yeah, you’re in trouble.  If you punch me in the nose because I’m a jerk, then you’re in trouble too.  It’s an odd way to describe how I have more rights than you-using violence as an example isn’t a good strategy.  For the record, I am not a big fan of hate crime legislation-that does sound more like special rights.  But other “special rights,” such as not being fired because I’m gay or not being evicted because I’m gay-I’m all for those.
      Yeah, you sound pretty accepting alright (~rolls eyes~).

      In any case, I think you’ve been in that Orlando magic too long.

      • Anonymous

        Gotta love the “I’m not anti-gay, I’ll allow you to have your rights when I get around to it” group.  I always doubt if they actually have gay “friends” or if they just know gay people who are too nice to tell them what they actually think about them.

        • Maine2Florida

          Awe… are you upset that a person can have gay friends and not be gay?  Are you upset that some people just don’t like your pov?  You are truly a hypocrite.  Yu blast anyone who has a different view than yours… but really thats what you are fighting against.  Seems that you may have a serious mental disorder, and have completely fallen off the shelf of reality and realism.   

          • Anonymous

            It seems that I struck a nerve, what with all of the name calling and insults in your post.  It’s not a matter of being “upset that a person can have gay friendds and not be gay”, it’s a matter of being surprised that any gay person would be friends with someone who thinks that they should not have the same rights as heterosexuals and that they should just wait until you give them some rights that you think they should have.  Honestly, give me one good legal reason as to why I should just settle for civil unions. (Hint: It’s always been this way is not a good legal reason.)

          • Maine2Florida

            Settle for civil unions?  Settle? Well, because its what you are fighting for isn’t it?  Same legal rights as hetro married couples?  That would be called comprimise for both sides, and noone would be losing anything, and everyone would have the same rights.  Thats not good enough for you though.  Until EVERYONE is forced to accept your view, then they are all evil anti-gay hypocrites (yes i have read your hateful posts, so don’t try and play the innocent game).  Sorry buddy, but you struck no nerve… it takes alot to get me upset, and you playing the woe-is-me act isnt one of them.  

          • Anonymous

            Considering that your posts are sounding angrier and angrier, I’d say that I am getting to you.  Your “compromise” is separate but equal, which is unconstitutional.  Either everyone gets civil marriage, or everyone gets civil unions.  I’m still waiting for that good legal reason as to why same sex couples should settle for civil unions instead of full civil marriage. 

          • Maine2Florida

            There isn’t a reason that I have really, except that it isn’t your right to change everyone else’s rights.  What is your legal reason for wanting married people (in its current definition) to change their rights and institution for your sake? Again, if you would have an open mind (like you are asking everyone else to do) and come to a compromise that allows everyone to be happy, and have the same “rights” than all of this would be over.  

            Oh, and I am sorry, but you will never make me angry.  You couldn’t even begin to bother me in the least bit, unless you were somewhere nearby, running your mouth, and judging me for who I am and what I believe… then we may have a problem. Like I said, you can marry your faquing dog for all I care.  I am a realist.  Thats it.  My only point is that there is no such thing as equal rights, so stop using that as an argument.  You have been offered many solutions but none are yours so they are not good enough. I am probably the only voice of reason you have heard for the people that oppose gay marriage, and yet you still are trying to demoralize and categorize me for my opinion.    

          • Anonymous

            “There isn’t a reason that I have really, except that it isn’t your right to change everyone else’s rights” – So, unless you can explain how allowing same sex couples to marry changes the rights of opposite sex couples, all that really matters is that you just admitted you have no legal reason to prevent same sex couples from legally gettting married. 

            I have also explained how your “compromise” doesn’t work. Separate but equal has already been ruled unconstitutional.

          • Alec Cunningham

            How are the rights of currently married people changed if I am allowed to marry my boyfriend?
            Forgive me for saying so, but I don’t think that you are a voice of reason.

          • Anonymous

            It’s sad, but I think in this case “voice of reason” means that he hasn’t compared us to pedophiles yet…

          • Maine2Florida

            Ok. FAQ you then.  I hope you lose.  You all are a bunch of attacking mean hateful people.  No wonder the state of maine voted it down.  You are all stuck on yourselves…  I am signing out.  Going to enjoy the world where all your hate and discontent is not.  

          • Anonymous

            Always hate speech from anti-gays…

          • Anonymous

            No, thanks, LGBT Americans DO NOT want to marry your dog.

            How much time a day do you fantasize about marrying a dog?  I hope you don’t have any pets.

          • Anonymous

            I see now that you are quite confused.  SSM in no way changes your or anyone else’s rights, unless of course you are a gay person who will then be able to marry.   
            And by the way, there most certainly is such a thing as equal rights under the law.  Perhaps that is one more thing of which you are unaware.

          • Maine2Florida

            Sure, some laws are equal, but most are not equal to everyone… 

          • Anonymous

            Still trying to IGNORE the FACT that anti-gays are fighting civil unions also?

          • Maine2Florida

            Guess I wasn’t aware there was even a fight there… or that “anti gays’ are fighting against them.  I am not “anti-gay” but I oppose gay marriage.  That’s my stand.  You can fight amongst yourselves… I live in Florida and I don’t really care.  I was just trying to give you anti-straight people an objectionable view.  Forget it. I hope you lose and cry yourself to sleep you ungrateful tool.  You wouldn’t see someone trying to help your case from a mile away.  For you, I mean YOUnot gays, its your way or the highway.  So I am getting on the highway.  Buh Bye little mind!  

          • Anonymous

            “I am not “anti-gay” but I oppose gay marriage.”

            Just another anti-gay lie.

          • Maine2Florida

            You lack intelligence. If anti-gay means I don’t like you, then so be it.  Don’t drag down the rest of the gay community due to your ignorance though.  You are destroying what they have worked so hard to get.  If I were any of them I would tell you to shut up, like the one person that already has. 

          • Alec Cunningham

            Using words like “awe” (which I think should be “awww”) and “cry baby” really isn’t mature.  But what do I know?  *I* am the epitome of injustice and inequality as well as the core cause of hatred with my narrow mind, not you.

          • Anonymous

            Anti-gays are always claiming they “have gay friends” and that their “gay friends don’t want equal rights.”

            Fail.

          • Maine2Florida

            Again with your little pee brain comments.  Not even worth responses at this point.  Grow a brain. 

          • Alec Cunningham

            Isn’t it “pea brain”?  And isn’t this a response?  And isn’t calling someone “pee brain” hateful?  If you don’t like that way you’re treated here, dear, maybe you should set an example.

          • Maine2Florida

            Tried that with first post.  Not gonna get bashed on and sit back like its ok.  Besides, I can play at any level… so I will do just that.  You know that if your nice to me, I am nice to you.  Jiff?  

          • Alec Cunningham

            OMG!  SPELLING!!!  It’s with ONE “f”!!!  :oP

            Well, yes, I can understand that.  But I’d like to point out that the experience we have with some people “on the other side” is hostility from the get go.  So, sometimes, people on our side are on the defensive immediately.  But really, calling someone a “cry baby” isn’t conducive to a meaningful debate, which is what most (some?) of us are looking for here.  And yes, some on our side are sort of hostile, too.  Two wrongs don’t make a right, however.
            My jar is almost empty.  Maybe that’s good, because that one 400 g jar has 2530 calories and goes so quickly….

          • Anonymous

            I find it strange that you say that you have gay friends but that you do not want them to have the same rights that you enjoy.  Civil unions in this country are not equal to civil marriage in many ways.  Perhaps you do not realize this.  In any case, this entire discussion is not about forcing anything on anyone.  It  is not about religion, no church would be forced to participate.  These marriages when the law passes in the fall will be about civil marriages.   You do not need to approve. 

            You say that you are a young person, well these days you are an unusual young person because the vast majority of young people in the country are absolutely for SSM. 
            While you have every right to be narrow minded it is  strange that if as you say you do have gay friends that you  would continue to be so narrow minded and against your friends’ best interests.  

          • Maine2Florida

            I am narrow minded?  Oh right, because I dont share your view.  I forgot if I am not for your opinion I am wrong.  Truth is, my original point was that instead of pushing to change everyones (especially older generations) mind on marriage, you should push for the civil union to be equal, and available to all people that don’t fit the current definition under marriage law.  Again, this would satisfy everyone, because you all would have the same rights under law as married couples, and they would not lose their “Tradition” and “sanctity” of their vows.  Seems simple.  Not though because it is not good enough for you until you destroy  those vows that all married couples have made… some under God.  My friends don’t really care that I have my own opinion, in fact they agree with my idea.  To be honest, they don’t really care cause none of them want to be married because it puts them into a category of people they are not… or something like that.  Don’t know… they are cool with me and me with them. No like I am picketing the streets with anti-gay sentiment or anything, just sticking to my views.  They respect that.  As should most people.  I respect all of yours.  

          • Alec Cunningham

            Dear, most of us know that simply because one doesn’t agree does not make them narrow minded.  It is your examples and the manner in which you talk to us that shows you as narrow minded.  There are plenty of people here that I don’t agree with whom I would not call narrow minded.
            But what do I know? I AM the epitome of injustice and inequality as well as the core cause of hatred with my narrow mind!

          • Anonymous

            I can see why your friends do  not care about your opinion.   God has no place in our country’s marriage laws or in determining any of our laws.   You do not have an understanding of the complexities across many lines as to why ‘civil unions’ under any guise are not sufficient to achieve full equal rights for the lesbian /gay community.
            It is not necessary for any ‘old person’ to change their views. All that is necessary is for all the people who do believe in equal marriage rights to come out and vote.

            By the way I am a 68 year old heterosexual who clearly sees the futility in continuing this discussion with you.  Peace.

          • Maine2Florida

            Buh bye.  Peace to you.  

      • Maine2Florida

        I don’t live in Orlando.  No don’t sit back and wait… make civil unions happen.  There is NO debate there.  If you weren’t so narrow minded, you would see that.  No one (at least not me, or most people) is telling you not to be gay and in love with your boyfriend.  They are telling you to leave marriage alone.  If your whole point is equal rights, then you are looking right past the option to give you just that.  Instead, you want to fight with everyone to change THEIR beliefs for YOUR benefit.   Yes, my punch in the nose example was spot on. You affirmed it.  If I punch you inthe nose cause your gay, hate crime.  If you punch me in the nose cause I am straight, simple assault.  I can be fired for being straight without question… you can’t get fired for being gay.  Or I would lose that case, you wouldn’t.  In case you missed the point of that ENTIRE post, let me reiterate…. There is no such thing, and never will be, EQUAL RIGHTS.  Get it?  Accepting?  You don’t know me.  I didnt attack you… again with you gays attacking anyone who doesn’t bow to your pov’s.  You my friend, are the epitome of injustice and inequality.  You are the core cause of hatred with your narrow mind.

        • Alec Cunningham

          No, you don’t live in Orlando, but 20 minutes from it, and that seems close enough to affect you.
          I have heard the arguments for civil unions and have thought long and hard about it these past 8 years and I don’t believe that they are an effective replacement for marriage.  I am sure you have heard the reasons why.  If not, let me know and I’ll tell you.
          Not everyone believes as you and I know hundreds of people in Maine that support same-sex marriage and most of them are straight.
          You seem to think that these laws shield me from everything.  I can still be fired or evicted, but not because I am gay.  Do you think it’s right to fire or evict someone because they’re gay?  Do you really think that your boss can go to you and fire you because you’re straight?  If that happens, let me know because that, too is wrong.  You must have missed my statements concerning hate-crime legislation, by the way.
          Sigh…the words you use and the manner in which you make your points lead people to believe that you think a certain way.  And then when they respond, they, or maybe just I, am called the epitome of injustice and inequality.  I am now the core cause of hatred with my narrow mind.  Golly!  I am trying to figure what I said to earn such a distinction…

          • Maine2Florida

            How did you earn that… well your sarcastic overtones that belittle my ideas, your rolling eyes and innuendos… all because I don’t think like you.  I am actually a voice of reason here trying to bring two divided sides together at an understanding, but because they are not perfect for you, I am labeled and categorized and attacked on a personal, political, and religious level even though I have never mentioned any of those three things.  Maybe you weren’t the worst person here doing it, but when you affiliate yourself with a group and participate in demoralizing and attacking someone that has some legitimate ideas then you are just as guilty… guilty by association. That is hy I was very careful to make sure I did not bring religion, political view, or any other affiliation into my argument in the first place.  I have nothing against gay people, and i have nothing against married people.  I think this whole debate is stupid, and causing a larger divide in the state, country, and beyond.   There should be a compromise.  Look at it objectionably.  Look at the basic.  Two groups.  At a stale mate.  If one side wins, the other is going to be unhappy.  How do we solve those kind of situations at work?  At school?  COMPROMISE.  

            You don’t see the opposition attacking me for having gay friends or agreeing with some of your points. Just saying.

          • Anonymous

            Sorry, there’s nothing about “compromising” in “Equal Protection Under the Law.”

            And please spare us that “have gay friends” nonsense.  No one believes you.

          • Maine2Florida

            Ok carrot boy.

        • Anonymous

          “[…]make civil unions happen.  There is NO debate there.”

          Yes, there is, the Republican Platform has a plank that opposes civil unions or ANY legal recognition WHATSOEVER for loving, committed same gender American couples.  This is how we have same gender couples being separated from each other by some low-level ward clerk at a hospital.

        • Tedlick Badkey

          No need for civil unions… fundies just attack those too.

          Marriage will work, and marriage we’ll have.

    • Anonymous

      If there is anything constant in life, it IS change. Thank GOD (yes, I mean your God) that attitudes like yours are fading and that younger Americans are not harboring the prejudices of their parents and grandparents. 

      I think there is enough difference between the Maine of 2009 and the Maine of 2012 that this year the vote might finally go the right way.

      BTW, what “lifestyles” are you referring to? My gay friends go to college, get jobs, buy houses, go to work, drive cars, cook supper, walk the dog, and do the exact things I do as a straight person. 

      • Maine2Florida

        You are really illiterate aren’t you.  I have stated many times that I am 
        a)young 
        b)not prejudice 
        c)never stated anything about my God or religion
        d)not married.

        So are you just having a hard time accepting the fact that someone that does not fit into your categorization still doesn’t share your view on gay marriage?  Sorry you can’t figure it out…. I. Have. My. Own. Opinion. 

        Yes you are right, lifestyles was a poor choice of words (oh look, I can admit when I am wrong too! What kind of person am I?). My gay friends are very much the same as me (lets say most of them anyway lol). I guess I should have said sexual orientation instead. Although, coming home and kissing another man everyday after work is definitely considered a different lifestyle than mine, but I will accept your point.

        • Anonymous

          You can tell yourself all day that you aren’t prejudiced. Write it until you are blue in the face on every message board you can find. But, if you at the same time post about “your lifestyles” and “your domestic partnership thingy” and that gays should be happy with civil unions and are wrong to pursue marriage, then don’t get your panties in a wad when other people see you as prejudiced.

          • Maine2Florida

            And you, my friend, are just as prejudice with your rhetoric. I have read what you wrote about peoples religion, and their beliefs…. if everyone that doesn’t agree with you is prejudice, then you are, well…  prejudice.  

          • Anonymous

            Anti-gays are always WHINING that their intended victims are the ones who are “prejudiced.”  That’s about as absurd as any other lie anti-gays tell.

          • Maine2Florida

            Ok Carrot boy.  

          • Anonymous

             We’ve tried Separate but Equal. That didn’t work. Besides, telling gays that they should be happy with civil unions, when civil unions aren’t even an option in this election anyway, is a non sequitur.  There are only two options before us. You’re for SSM or you’re against SSM. That’s it.

             Jesus said Love thy Neighbor. Not Love thy straight neighbor.  God made us all. White and black, male and female, straight AND gay. If the anti-SSM side would come out with proof that being gay is a “decision” (that someone is not born gay), I am open to considering the other side. But all the folks I know who are gay have been 100% gay as long as I have known them. It’s not something they turn off and on. So far all the other side has is “this book that is over 2000 years old–and parts of which we choose to no longer follow–tell us one man + one woman.” 

            That’s just not enough to make me treat my friends like they are a lesser class of humanity than you or me.

          • Maine2Florida

            I have never said anything about hating or not liking gays.  I have never said it is something you turn off or on.  All the gay people I know have never had a problem with me or the fact i am straight.  Non have made me feel like I am wrong because I don’t puff peter.  I do treat all gay people that I come in contact with the same as anyone else (like people, I treat all people like people)…. some people straight or gay are a bit over the top which I tend to stay away from, but to have you put me in some hate category cause i don’t agree with one topic is completely absurd.  I have not, and never have contested why or the origin of someones sexual orientation.  NEVER.  So you are making this argument out of pure prejudice towards me because I have a different opinion on one topic.  And yet I am the one called anti this and blah blah… yes I fire back.  No I should not, but you poke a bear enough it will wake up.  Just sayin.  My friends like me because of my open mind and mellow attitude.  You don’t know me. 

          • Vibiana

            “My friends like me because of my open mind and mellow attitude.”

            Too bad you didn’t bring it with you into this forum.  LOL

          • Maine2Florida

            I tried with my first post… after being attacked for my ideas/opinions, I had to be what I had to be.  Would you let someone continuously slap you in the face and not react?  Funny because I defend being gay but not ssm, so I think ya’ll don’t know how to approach me.  LOL!  I am a unique mind I suppose… I will give you that. ;) 

          • Alec Cunningham

            I’ve encountered many people who are of the same mindset.  But none of them have been as combative as you, though.

          • Maine2Florida

            In the middle of a combat zone, you kinda have to be combative… I have seen you be the same way.  Guess we are alot alike then.  ;) You hate that don’t you?  lol!

          • Alec Cunningham

            I think you started as a bear woken up, actually…

          • Maine2Florida

            Well as long as I am not hunted and killed, I will be ok with that.  And actually, I was very serious, and non-judgmental to either side of this debate in my original post.  Did you even read it?  

          • Alec Cunningham

            Actually, I am not sure anymore!!!  There have been so many from all of us that I am losing track.  And I am down coffee by two cups now, so who knows what’s going on anymore.

          • Maine2Florida

            I was thinking the same thing.  I cant even keep up with my inbox!  Wholy moly what did I get myself into?  Hahahaha!  Your pretty cool though… I have just been skipping over all the mean sh*t now and replying to you!  But even that is overwhelming cause there are like a hundred different posts!  Ugh.

    • Tedlick Badkey

      Liar.

      Nobody’s touching your morality.

      And you’re not very bright either are you, hon? There are NO CIVIL UNIONS in Maine, nor are any recognized by the federal government.

      Lastly, you DO INDEED get special rights, sunshine… guaranteed to you under the Civil Rights Acts of ’64 and ’68. See, your choice to be religious is protected by special rights in both, as well as your race and gender (white male).

      Amazing how uneducated you are.

      • Maine2Florida

        Wow hon (whatever hon is) you are truly an ignorant human.  I know Maine has no Civil Unions.  Domestic partner registry to be correct.  And just where did i say that Maine had Civil Unions?  Where?  Oh, and everyone has those rights of religion, gender, and race.  I was speaking of special interst groups, and the special rights they have.  If you are not aware of those, or couldn’t figure that out, then maybe you are uneducated.  You are so hateful and blind you just called a software engineer uneducated… feel stupid now?  You should.

        • Alec Cunningham

          Again, you lead people to think you are saying something and then attack those people for addressing it.
          Thanks, hon!

        • Tedlick Badkey

          You told me in an earlier post from a week or so ago to go get a civil union. 

          Here’s the link: http://bangordailynews.com/2012/08/15/news/state/married-couple-hired-to-run-campaign-opposed-to-same-sex-marriage/#comment-621016431

          To quote: “Civil unions are readily available at your town office.”

          Domestic partnerships do NOT extend all of the benefits and guarantees of marriage. Software engineer? Meaningless. Your understanding of “special rights” demonstrates that.

        • Anonymous

          YOU have a SPECIAL RIGHT RIGHT NOW–that of legal marriage.

        • Vibiana

          I hope you’re better with software than you are with human relations.

          • Maine2Florida

            I am very good at everything I do.  Thanks. If you are judging me from a hate filled debate in a newspaper forum from rural Maine, then you are indeed terrible at human relations. 

          • Vibiana

            Actually, I’m participating in this from Kansas, so it’s more of a triangular situation between you, me, and rural Maine.  LOL

            Most of the “hate” I have seen in this debate comes from your posts.

          • Maine2Florida

            Hate breeds hate… I did not start any hate, but I did partake. Yes, that is just as bad, and is not my norm, but I love a good debate.  I probably shouldnt even stick my nose in here considered I really don’t care one way or the other, but I love a good debate!  Hhahaha!

          • Vibiana

            If you were debating something you don’t really care about one way or the other, no wonder you were unable to come up with a valid argument. ;)

          • Maine2Florida

            It wasn’t an argument, it was an idea for both parties to come to a conclusion.  That’s all I’m after.  I hate to see division anywhere.  Did you even see my original post?  Regular Joe and I have determined that this forum is so overwhelmed and construed at this point we cant tell what is what.  

          • Vibiana

            If you are talking about civil unions, the only way I would go along with that idea is for civil unions to be the baseline for EVERY couple, gay and straight.  Otherwise, it is just separate but equal BS.  The same people who rabidly oppose same sex marriage also rabidly oppose civil unions, and they will work to undermine them as well.  Also, civil unions are not universally recognized the way marriage is and do not offer the same protections.

          • Maine2Florida

            I just think it would be an easier war to win.  Make civil Unions equal to marriage laws.  I just think both parties would have what they want.  There is no way to make everyone happy… thats the problem.  Someone is going to feel they got screwed.  So spread that screwed to everyone (no I am not being dirty ;).  Just how I feel BECAUSE I am compassionate for both parties involved.  Apparently that makes me evil. lol

          • Alec Cunningham

            It’s good to be able to see both sides.  The problem with civil unions is that they are not universal like marriage is.  Aside from the unconstitutional DOMA, a marriage performed in Kentucky is recognized equally in Washington.  However, a civil union from California may or may not mean the same thing or anything at all in Tennessee.
            And, of course, there are many who don’t think that gays should have ANY recognition of protection.

          • Maine2Florida

            Right, I understand that.  Thats what I meant when I said the fight should be to make the Civil Union on an equal level as “marriage” according to law.  I think most that are opposed to the marriage thing is because they feel like it imposes on there “sanctity” of their vows they promised to God, and the meaning of the oath they took under law.  I understand that doesn’t make for  legal standpoint really (well it has to this point), but to try and get those people to change that view is such a battle.  I think most opposition would just let it go if the focus changed from “ruining their customs” to starting a new set of laws pertaining to ssm.  Not sure if I explained that well, but basically, I am just saying take marriage, strip the name off, and slap on a new label.  Boom, safe difference.  Maybe I am to simple in that matter, but from what i hear from both sides, that would settle everything.  As for the people that oppose a civil union of equality to marriage, well those are the ones we all need to fight against. 

          • Alec Cunningham

            I know that many gay people would rather have something different, but I think that changing marriage for everyone would be a harder fight than the one we have now.  Especially since there are now, in some states, majorities that favor SSM.

          • Maine2Florida

            That is what I hear too, that the gay community would rather have their own set of traditions.  I agree that most people, especially younger and non-married, have supported the ssm, and that support is growing.  The problem is that if passed on a state level, it will not be the same as marriage still, because a state that does not recognize ssm will not honor it.  I agree with you all that the law should not deny two people that are in love equal rights, on a federal level.  There needs to be some kind of compromise in order to stop the divide.  I think the gay community is widely accepted as is these days, and that is great.  I think the underlying issue the government is having is trying to make everyone happy.  That will never happen unless you form 2 kinds of marriage.  Traditional, and… modern.  Maybe the same laws but a distinction in definition?? IDK. Its like trying to bring two tribes that have never met together in a peaceful resolve… without incident.  How do you blend it?  

          • Alec Cunningham

            You excel at debate.

          • Maine2Florida

            Thanks, as do you.

          • Alec Cunningham

            Uh, oh.  I was being sarcastic….are you too??  I’m not sure if your response was nice or not nice!!!!  I really need to get more coffee….

          • Maine2Florida

            Your pretty funny!  I may have had too much coffee already… Sarcasm is hard to detect in text, so you’ll have to guess.  Yes I was being nice as i thought you were, now that I know you weren’t… I take it back! 

          • Alec Cunningham

            Uh, I mean, yeah, I was totally serious!

            I just stumbled on the best solution.  Put the Jif chocolate hazelnut spread IN the coffee!  I just did that and now I am doing both at once!!  But I still need to add sugar, if you can believe it….

          • Maine2Florida

            I just burst out laughing in the office.. everyone is staring at me now.  Literally LOL’d.  I can see you now going.. F**k it, ima just throw it in there.  Hahahahaha!

  • Anonymous

    Can we all agree that committing a criminal act is IMMORAL?

    The anti-gays committed criminal acts to throw the 2009 anti-gay Hate Vote.  The Maine Ethics Commission, for example, caught the anti-gay Hate Cult from away, NOM, committing a criminal act in violation of our campaign finance and disclosure laws.  NOM is STILL in violation of our laws, even though the US Supreme Court rejected their appeal of their conviction.

    Anti-gays posting here have expressed a willingness to commit such criminal acts again, and to poison our political process again.

    When anti-gays claim to speak about “morality,” it’s important to remember they are known to be immoral themselves.

  • Anonymous

    The more I think of it, the more likely it is that this photo wasn’t taken by a Chinese person at all.

    The Chinese would be disgusted by this.

    Was it taken by an AP photographer? 

    It’s being pushed by elites who want to brainwash the American people. 

    The Chinese don’t want this. 

    • Anonymous

      You’re amazing. You know what God thinks. You know what “The Chinese” think. I wish I had your gift.

    • Anonymous

      If you were truly “disgusted,” you would simply look away and mind your own business.  The evidence you yourself have posted here suggests you are obsessed with what loving, committed same gender couples do in private.

    • Tedlick Badkey

      ROFLOL!!! The only multicultural thing you’ve ever had in your life was a drive to Portland…

      What a xenophobic and stereotypical comment!

      You’re one classless little peon, man… one classless little peon.

  • Anonymous

    Look, let’s get one or two things straight.

    You do not have a legal right to same sex marriage IN THIS STATE.

    That is what you are trying to change.

    Second,  our laws ARE based on God’s laws as revealed in the Bible.

    • Anonymous

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

    • Tedlick Badkey

      We will my closeted little sweetheart… we will.

      We will change it.

      And the overwhelming majority of your “sins” are perfectly legal… 

      The buybull is not our civil law… if you think it is, please explain how so many of your “sins” are legal?

      Can you explain that, little one?

    • Anonymous

      Here are some more of ‘god’s’ brilliant laws perhaps you could answer these questions:

      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 am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

    • Anonymous

      No they aren’t. Please point to a single law on our books that is from the Bible that is not also found in muslim, hindu and buddhist cultures.

  • Anonymous

    To SonofBangor: “If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.” – Deuteronomy 22:28

    So, when are you going to work on getting that bit of “god’s law” into actual law?

    • Anonymous

      I would if I could.

      This law is called “breach of promise” and it used to be on the law books in Maine, as were laws outlawing sodomy and adultery.

      That was before America became an enlightened crime-infested country with a 60% divorce rate and the largest prison population in the world. 

      • Anonymous

        So, just so we’re clear, if you could, you would force a rape victim to marry her rapist?

        • Alec Cunningham

          The largest prison population is less to do with high crime rates (which are lower now) and more to do with the increasing criminalization of our behavior.  The more laws on the books, the more likely one will break them, the more likely one will be sent to a prison run by a prison corporation.  Thank you ALEC!!!

  • Anonymous

    Unless you want people having sex in church, you should keep church out of people’s bedrooms. Or would you like to see people petitioning the government to treat every religious person in the country as if they had something wrong with them? 
    Most of the time when people grow up, they stop taking advice from invisible friends that no one else can hear. If they don’t, society has a word for them. Delusional. 

  • Anonymous

    The Maine Ethics Commission caught anti-gays violating our laws during the 2009 anti-gay Hate Vote.  We see right here that anti-gays are trying to deny that FACT, and that some of them imply they will commit the same crimes again.

    Anti-gays are always shrieking how their intended victims are “immoral,” but what is REALLY IMMORAL is anti-gays committing these criminal acts and poisoning our political process in their overreaching to FORCE their immoral views onto all Mainers.

    Denying marriage equality to LGBT Mainers doesn’t just hurt us, it hurts our families, our friends, our neighbors and our coworkers who love and support us.  If you know of someone who is planning to violate Maine’s campaign finance and disclosure laws, please inform the Maine Ethics Commission.  They take anonymous reports and investigate them.  You might be doing that anti-gay a big favor by having him or her caught before they get themselves into worse trouble.

    • Tedlick Badkey

      They ended up paying $49,000 in CA for the same criminal acts (that wingnuts and fundies NEVER speak against).

      In time gay marriage will be a reality. Those against it have no argument to defend their views that will stand in court.

      Thus, they provide no legal reason to keep gay marriage from being a reality. They will lose.

      • Anonymous

        The authorities in California have assessed that fine but the anti-gays have not paid it.  It is the second fine the California authorities have assessed.

        But many more fines will be assessed by California authorities.  The federal judge who revoked the 2008 California anti-gay H8te Vote that deprived LGBT Californians of existing marriage equality had in his possession a letter Catholic bishops wrote to Mormon leaders agreeing to hide from public scrutiny and refuse to report their illegal cash and in-kind contributions to the H8te Vote as required by California law. The letter serves as proof they knew by refusing to report these massive contributions they were violating campaign finance laws, as well as the letter itself being an act of criminal collusion.  The document is being sent to the US Supreme Court along with all the documents from that case, “Perry vs. Brown.”  At the conclusion of that case the Supreme Court will give that document to the California authorities, and then the BIG FINES will be assessed.
         

  • Anonymous

    This just might be the funniest thing an anti-gay has written so far:

    “an anit-straight popularity contest”

    Anti-straight?????  There’s NO SUCH THING as a “heterophobe.”  All LGBT Americans love our non-gay relatives and friends.

    However, psychologists identified homophobia as a mental illness and published their results in the Journal of the National Institutes of Health in 1953.  Psychologists report that the most commonly observed symptom of the mental disorder homophobia is an inability of those so afflicted to accept documentation that contradicts their deep-seated phobia and hatred of LGBT Americans.  That might be the reason that poster refuses to believe in that mental disorder.

  • Anonymous

    The social institution of  marriage is universal and transcends religion or government. It would be so helpful to the discussion if everyone understood what a social institution is and how it functions in a cultural society.   “When the disappearing social institution is marriage, what is left is a motley crew of lifestyles, and a lifestyle is to an institution what a plain sheet of paper is to a $1000 bill.” Marriage, Fundamental Premises, and the California, Connecticut, and Iowa Supreme Courts, Monte N. Stewart  –  Get the facts at http://www.Maine4Marriage.org

    • Alec Cunningham

      Exactly-that’s why we want marriage and not a “civil union” because marriages are universal-civil unions aren’t.  Instead of a motley crew of laws and regulations across the country, the social institution of marriage should be expanded to include people of the same gender.  If you think marriage is disappearing, what better way to ensure its future!
      Thanks for helping us make these points!

    • Anonymous

      Has YOUR group accepted funds from the anti-gay Hate Cult NOM that was caught violating Maine’s campaign finance and disclosure laws in 2009?  Is your group associated with any other of the anti-gay Hate Cults?

      Will your anti-gay group violate Maine’s laws like was done in 2009?

    • Anonymous

      If you’re really concerned about ‘disappearing social institution’ you would be more concerned about the divorce rate in this country- which I might add same sex couples have had nothing to do with.  Divorce has been due to all the opposite sex couples who can’t seem to make a commitment and stick to it.  Why don’t you work on banning divorce?

      • Anonymous

        Because that would inconvenience the anti-gays themselves more than anyone else.  “Evangelicals” have the HIGHEST divorce rate of anyone in America.  They want to tell EVERYONE ELSE how to live, but don’t want anyone telling them how to live.

        • Anonymous

          Agree…..

    • ReasonWillTriumph

      As for “social institutions” they change. All the time.

      Just like this one.

      You must have stood against interracial marriage… after all, the social institution was only members of the same race should wed.

      Was that “social institution” OK with you?

      • Anonymous

        At the time of the US Supreme Court’s “Loving vs. Virginia” ruling, the great majority of Americans wanted to deny interracial couples legal marriage.  However, 57-59% of all Americans now support marriage equality.  This is one other fact anti-gays can’t acknowledge here but that they recognize is an indication their dirty anti-gay agenda has failed.

  • Anonymous

    That anti-gay website being advertized below is full of lies.

  • Maine2Florida

    GFY

    • Anonymous

      Nothing more pathetic than some anti-gay whining that his intended victims are “the real haters.”

    • ReasonWillTriumph

      Sweetie, nobody hates you here… while we’re trying to take nothing from you, you and your kind are indeed trying to take something from us.

      There is no comparison.

      Reality is this, little one.

      You have put forward no rational legal argument… no government objective that can only be upheld by continued marriage discrimination against gay citizens… no obvious and identifiable harm from gay marriage.

      Without that, you will continue to lose at the federal level, regardless of what the mob votes on.

      No hate at all… just easy to understand fact.

    • Anonymous

      I DON”T KNOW HOW TO TURN CAPS LOCK OFF.

      • Alec Cunningham

        I don’t understand why he’s so sensitive.  And plenty of Mainer’s like me!!
        Sheesh-with all those capital letters, any blind man can read them!  Even me, the epitome!

    • Anonymous

      Edited: I see you went and removed your message here, where you screamed that everyone was being so mean to you. Below is my response to that bit of hypocrisy:

      I’ve read through your messages here, where you call people illiterate, demean them, and poke fun at how gay people show their love for one another referring to their husbands or wives.

      I think people have been treating you as you have been treating them.

  • Anonymous

    I want to thank the editor for this editorial and accompanying photo.

    No one has ever done a better job at uncovering the madness at the heart of the same sex marriage movement. 

    Could it be the two women dressed up as brides which is inspiring all their hate and blasphemy?

    Watch out, Maine. This is what their movement is really all about. 

    Could the bride in this photo be, dare I say it, a m-a-n?

    • Anonymous

      “uncovering the madness at the heart of the same sex marriage movement. ”

      Actually, the Maine Ethics Commission did a great job at exposing the criminal activity of the anti-gay Hate Cult NOM.

      Criminal activity is what the anti-gay “movement” is all about.

    • ReasonWillTriumph

      Paranoid and insane.

      You’re a real piece of work little peon… a real piece of work.

      • Anonymous

        Reason?

        The photos from any gay shame parade will tell you who is insane. 

        • Tedlick Badkey

          Then don’t go.

          Closeted little obsessed man.

    • Vibiana

      I’m sure you’ll be fapping to it for days.

  • Anonymous

    Sad to say, anti-gay organizations typically lie.  The Southern Poverty Law Center has designated some of them “anti-gay Hate Cults”:

    “Even as some well-known anti-gay groups like Focus on the Family
    moderate their views, a hard core of smaller groups, most of them
    religiously motivated, have continued to pump out demonizing propaganda aimed at homosexuals and other sexual minorities. These groups’ influence reaches far beyond what their size would suggest, because the “facts” they disseminate about homosexuality
    are often amplified by certain politicians, other groups and even news
    organizations. Of the 18 groups profiled below, the Southern Poverty Law
    Center (SPLC) will be listing 13 next year as hate groups (eight were
    previously listed), reflecting further research into their views; those
    are each marked with an asterisk. Generally, the SPLC’s listings of
    these groups is based on their propagation of known falsehoods
    — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by
    scientific authorities — and repeated, groundless name-calling. Viewing
    homosexuality as unbiblical does not qualify organizations for listing
    as hate groups.”

    http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/the-hard-liners

  • Thank you for a reasonable yet heartfelt discussion pointing out the separation of church & State.

  • Anonymous

    Those against are a bunch of closed mined individuals, half of whom are probably secretly gay, trying to cover their fear of change with bluster and bible verses.

    • ReasonWillTriumph

      They’re not all secretly gay…

      But Son of Bangor is.

      • Anonymous

        He did express an overarching obsession with the private activities of same gender couples.

    • Anonymous

      Science has proven that.  Here’s another study:

      http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/05/05/the-christian-rights-gay-problem.html

      “In 1996, three researchers from the University of Georgia published a study in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology about the links between homophobia and homosexual arousal. The authors, Henry E. Adams, Lester W. Wright, Jr., and Bethany A. Lohr, started with 35 straight men identified as homophobic and 29 straight men that were not. Both groups were shown heterosexual, lesbian and gay male porn while their erectile responses were measured. “Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli,” reported the researchers.

      It was empirical evidence for a theory long popular among psychoanalysts: that those most hostile to gay people are often driven by terror and shame about their own desires.”
       

  • Anonymous

    Very sad………………….we drape an American flag over a gay soldiers’ caskets and say what a great American they were as we hold memorials to their bravery but if a gay soldier wants to marry?

  • Anonymous

    I’m still waiting for  “Maine4Marriage” to answer my questions:1)  What is the connection between your group and the anti-gay Hate Cult NOM, which was caught violating Maine campaign finance and disclosure laws in 2009?2)  To what other anti-gay Hate Cults is your group connected?3)  Did your group violate Maine campaign finance and disclosure laws in 2009?4)  Has your group committed such criminal acts this year?  Do you intend to poison our political process as was done in 2009 by anti-gays?

  • Anonymous

    Cute.

  • Anonymous

    no marriage between the same sex isn’t a legal right

    • Tedlick Badkey

      What is your rational argument against it?

    • Vibiana

      It’s a human right.

      • Anonymous

        No it’s not

        • Vibiana

          Loving vs. Virginia, 1967, Supreme Court ruled that marriage is a fundamental human right.

        • Tedlick Badkey

          Come on sweetie…

          What is your rational argument against it?

          • Anonymous

            I’m not your sweetie. And I don’t have to justify my opinion to you.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            Then you will lose.

            See, it’s about oh so much more than your opinion… in fact, nobody’s trying to change your opinion. Like the KKKlan, you can hold whatever opinions you wish.

            Fact is, this will be settled in the courts. As a couple of good primers of what will be needed to win this, I recommend the Prop 8 trial and the Iowa court decision on the matter.

            Together, they lay it all out in black and white.

            Those are the arguments you must quell… that you must defeat in court.

            Or… you have already lost.

          • Anonymous

            That doesn’t make it right

          • Tedlick Badkey

            It’s not about what you think is right or wrong hotshot.

            You can believe whatever you wish… nobody can take that from you.

            Where is your rational explanation on why it’s “wrong” and why gay marriage should not be granted?
            Not one of you, including your Klan member buddy on here, can put one forth.

  • Anonymous

    The BDN is working with the same sex marriage movement to show the homosexual lifestyle as all sweetness and light.

    Actually, a substantial part of it is the sexual underworld.

    You can prove this by visiting the Americansfortruth.org website.

    • Tedlick Badkey

      Just like one can prove your god and what you know of its creation is a lie.

      Just go to http://timecube.com/.

      Just as rational.

      • Anonymous

        It WAS mighty funny of SonofBangor to tell us where he gets his soft core “gay sex” porn.

    • Anonymous

      The ONLY thing readers will find at the website of that anti-gay Hate Cult is lies. 
      Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) was formed as a
      part-time venture in 1996 by long-time gay-basher Peter LaBarbera, who
      reorganized it in 2006 as a much more serious and influential, if often
      vicious, operation.

      A one-time reporter for the conservative
      Washington Times, LaBarbera has been an energetic campaigner against
      “the radical homosexual agenda” since at least 1993, when he launched
      The Lambda Report, which claimed to do first-hand reporting to expose
      its gay enemies. Over the years, he has been an official with Accuracy
      in Media, Concerned Women for America, the Family Research Council and
      the Illinois Family Institute (see below for the last three). He left
      the Illinois Family Institute, where he’d been executive director, in
      2006.

      AFTAH is notable for its posting of the utterly discredited
      work of Paul Cameron (of the Family Research Institute; see below), who
      has claimed that gays and lesbians live vastly shorter lives than
      heterosexuals. Among the Cameron propaganda published by AFTAH are 2007
      claims that gays and lesbians in Norway and Denmark live 24 fewer years
      than heterosexuals. Reviewing that claim, Danish epidemiologist Morten
      Frisch found that it had no scientific basis.
      LaBarbera himself, in 2002, compared the alleged dangers of
      homosexuality to those of “smoking, alcohol and drug abuse.” Similarly,
      AFTAH’s website carries essays describing homosexuality as a “lethal
      behavior addiction,” a “dangerous” practice that is “neither normal nor
      benign.”

    • Anonymous

      I can tell a lot about you by the kind of web sites you put your faith in.  Try making friends with a real gay person in Maine. You’d be surprised at what you find. They are actually normal folks who want to settle down, pursue a career, own their own business, build a house, plant a garden, have friends over for dinner, raise kids. They are  not the flamboyant NYC drag queens you’ve conjured up in your mind.

  • Anonymous

    The Southern Poverty Law Center has certified the owners of the website SonofBangor wants you to visit an anti-gay Hate Cult:

    Even as some well-known anti-gay groups like Focus on the Family
    moderate their views, a hard core of smaller groups, most of them
    religiously motivated, have continued to pump out demonizing propaganda aimed at homosexuals and other sexual minorities. These groups’ influence reaches far beyond what their size would suggest, because the “facts” they disseminate about homosexuality
    are often amplified by certain politicians, other groups and even news
    organizations. Of the 18 groups profiled below, the Southern Poverty Law
    Center (SPLC) will be listing 13 next year as hate groups (eight were
    previously listed), reflecting further research into their views; those
    are each marked with an asterisk. Generally, the SPLC’s listings of
    these groups is based on their propagation of known falsehoods
    — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by
    scientific authorities — and repeated, groundless name-calling. Viewing
    homosexuality as unbiblical does not qualify organizations for listing
    as hate groups.
     

  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous

    PEOPLE OF MAINE:

    Please note the blasphemy, hatred, and sheer depravity you read in these comments from the supporters of same sex “marriage.”

    You will not see the truth about the homosexual lifestyle in photos published by the BDN, which show only hearts and flowers.  

    The truth is revealed by the photos from their own gay shame parades.

    Try Americansfortruth.org or Massresistance.org. 

    A substantial part of  the homosexual lifestyle is the sexual underworld:gay bars, leather clubs, and NAMBLA.

    You will never be shown this by the BDN or any other of the mainstream media.  

    • Anonymous

      Why do you have to act so immorally, lying at every turn, just to make your case?

      Maybe because your attitude is hurtful and wrong?

    • Tedlick Badkey

      And remember to be sure and visit http://www.timecube.com to learn the truth of god and  the universe folks! And you’ll never see it on BDN or the mainstream media!!!

      It’s just as reputable as our closeted little man’s references!

      As for blasphemy, I haven’t seen anyone here say anything against His Noodliness, so there has been no blasphemy (RAmen!).

      It’s funny that you rail against parades, bars, clubs… places I don’t even frequent…

      Does their discussion give you a thrill little one?

      • Anonymous

        Because we all know there aren’t strip clubs where horny hetero men can buy female “companionship.”

    • Anonymous

      There’s a lot of kink going on in hetero relationships. But you’re not railing against that? Hypocrite.

      You are so uninformed. Because there is SOME kink going on in SOME relationships, now all of a sudden ALL relationships are kinky. That’s stereotyping, you know. I could just as easily say “some of the people on the right are absolute nut jobs. So everyone on the right is an absolute nut job.”

      Suggestion: worry about your own bedroom, and quit worrying about what’s going on in someone else’s.

      • Tedlick Badkey

        If he railed against that, he wouldn’t have to do all the research into gay sex that excites him so.

        He’s one of the most obvious closet cases I’ve seen in a long time.

    • Anonymous

      What do you consider “A substantial part of the homosexual lifestyle is the sexual underworld:gay bars, leather clubs, and NAMBLA” to be SonofBangor?

      • Maine2Florida

        I think he would be speaking of events like 
        San Francisco Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Pride Celebration which has been pretty explicit.  Not saying that is what you partake in or act like, but you must understand that a lot of people view homosexuality as this kind thing, especially when it is so public.  I know you are not naive so don’t play that way (saying that in a non mean way).  You have to admit that some celebrations involving gay pride have been rather explicit and readily televised and publicized.

        • Anonymous

          Can Pride Parades get explicit?  Absolutely.  However, I do not think that what you see on television accurately reflects Pride parades.  Let’s face it, nearly naked people in a sea of body glitter makes for good ratings.  I went to a Pride parade in Rochester NY, and besides two floats for some bars that were a bit suggestive, nothing about that parade could be considered explicit.  What was really surprising was the number of churches that were in the parade.  I lost count after 10.  Personally, I feel that until you actually go to a Pride parade, you can’t really talk about what goes on at a Pride parade, and I doubt SonofBangor has ever been to one, unless he was protesting.

        • Anonymous

          Do you mind if I clear up some of your preconceived notions about my sexual orientation prior to reponding?

          Thank you, I knew you wouldn’t mind.

          I have been married for close to 30 years in a heterosexual relationship with one daughter. So, to politely respond I do not “partake in or act like” anything you thought I did. I understand it is easy to assume that all posters that support SSM are gay or lesbian but that is just not the case.

          Now that we have cleared that up, have you ever been to New Orleans around Mardi Gras time? I have…rather an interesting place and I was there the week prior to Mardi Gras too! The things you see on parade and the side streets and alleys.

          Women flashing their breasts and genitals for beads.

          The silhouettes of nude woman dancing in storefront windows on Bourbon Street.

          Heterosexual couples engaging in intercourse and sodomy on side streets and in darkened doorways.

          But this here is one thing I didn’t see….I didn’t see one homosexual or lesbian engaging in anything like I witnessed of heterosexual couples doing.

          You might be asking my point of posting what I witnessed. Well my point is that the homosexual community does not own nor have they cornered the market in explicit public activity.

          Fact of the matter is people travel to New Orleans to not only watch what happens on Bourbon Street in the weeks leading up to Mardi Gras but to engage in that activity and I hear no one yelling and screaming (especially SonofBangor) that we need to put a stop to Mardi Gras. And I bet if you did there would be an outcry that government was attempting to “censor” free speech by restricting what can and cannot (or turned a blind eye to) happen in New Orleans during the weeks leading up to Mardi Gras.

          (edited for spelling and ease of reading)

        • Alec Cunningham

          Yes, and it’s unfortunate that thinking people choose to focus on the fringe and not see the mainstream.  The news will show Dykes on Bikes and the West Hollywood Cheerleaders, but little is said about the non-flamboyant gays that are the neighbors and friends of all of us.
          For that matter, there are examples of similar behavior among straight people.

  • Maine2Florida

    “Journal of Abnormal Psychology”.  That speaks a thousand words right there. 

  • Maine2Florida

    Sorry I develop software using caps alot.  Let me guess, I offended you because I used caps.  I am somehow “anti-gay” now.  Hahahaha!  Nope, I just have a job.

  • Maine2Florida

    I am bigger then you will ever be… sweetie.  And I could care less about your marriage thing… really I do not care.  Said it a thousand times, and yet you and many others throw hate and discontent at me because I am not agreeing to your opinions.  You go on with your bad self sista… make the world a wonderful place.  

    • Alec Cunningham

      It’s not our fault you choose to interpret our comments as hate.  Maybe you need to look at yourself.  Have you looked at yourself?  You need to look at yourself.

  • Maine2Florida

    Can yu say anything but anti-gay?  Even your gay friends are telling you it is stupid.  Are you so trendy that you can’t come up with your own intellectualism?

  • Tedlick Badkey

    Um… Maine2Florida you need to clear cache and reboot your browser.

    Your posts are not coming through as replies.

    • Maine2Florida

      Oh ya.. no kidding! I am sure everyone’s confused what I am saying now!  Hahahaha!  Thanks! Wow! They are ALL over the place!

      • Anonymous

        You seem to be having a grand time making a fool of yourself.

        • Maine2Florida

          Ya I am having fun.  

  • Anonymous

    To Maine2Florida: First, I would like to apologize for being antagonistic earlier.  After reading some of your other posts, it became more apparent that you are looking for a more conductive debate.  I would like to present, in a more rational manner, my position:

    You have said that you support a compromise of civil unions for same sex couples that have the same rights as marriage.  Honestly, I used to feel the same way.  However, over time, I came to reject this compromise on the basis that it is not actually equal to marriage.  As some other posters have said, every state recognizes marriage the same way.  The same cannot be said for civil unions.  By providing one unifying term for the legal recognition of same sex relationships and opposite sex relationships, it would greatly reduce the potential for those conflicts.  Another reason why I do not feel this would be an acceptable compromise is that it is a clear case of separate but equal.  We would have two institutions that do the exact same thing, yet same sex couples would be put into  what society views as a lesser institution to marriage.  Personally, I feel that the only potential compromise to this issue would be for ALL legal unions to be civil unions and marriages would have no legal meaning.  That would allow heterosexual and homosexual couples to be equal in the law AND would allow for a clearer distinction between the legal institution and the religious institution.

    That being said, I do not see that happening any time soon.  I feel that the simplest solution is to allow same sex couples to have legal marriage, all while explicitly stating the the law the religious institutions do not have to perform said marriages.

    On a final note, if, in the future, you are looking for a rational debate, I would strongly suggest that you do not say things like the “gay lifestyle”.  For one, that term is generally used by the religious right in an attempt to demonize the LGBT community.  On another note, there is no such thing as the “gay lifestyle” just as there is no such thing as the “straight lifestyle.”  The LGBT community is just as varied as the heterosexual community.

    • Maine2Florida

      No need to apologize.  Its like jumping into a fire on here…. its to be expected.  This is not a debate for the thin skinned.  I was a little surprised that noone accepted the fact I was trying to bring two sides together. but that was smothered in bickering from myself and others.  I know what you mean by civil union not being equal…. but it could be.  Thats why I keep suggesting it.  I said in another post that both sides of this debate, one or the other is going to be let down or feel defeated.  I don’t think it should be that way.  You are on to something with the doing away with marriage on a legal level.  I had just suggested that maybe the law as it stand could be amended into two parts… traditional, and modern.  Clearly stated in the law that the traditional marriage license that it is what it currently is, and always will be, and then the modern marriage license would be open to anything that does not fit into the traditional sense.   You have to admit, that a ssm is not a traditional marriage.  IDK.  I just don’t like things to come to such a cut and dry conflict.  There should be NO losers in this battle.  Everyone has very strong feelings and rights here, and to say anyone of them, religious, legally, or personally is wrong is just not the answer to me.  

      About the language I used… look it is such a touchy subject that no matter how you say it it doesn’t sound right.  I myself call everyone people, but for the sake of debate I have to distinguish between the two… umm… sorry “lifestyles”.  I know that there isn’t any difference aside from sexual preference in most cases.  My friends who are gay are no different than me and noone would ever even be able to tell unless they asked or saw them with their significant other.  There is just no way to separate in a debate without sounding like you are doing it on purpose.  You know, like saying you people, or gays, or lifestyle… its not something I am used to saying.  How do you separate the two (straight and gay) without alienating someone else? You run into the same thing when debating say… black and white differences.  Pretty much anything you say will sound like you are trying to stereotype the other.  I dont call my gay friends “gay friends” in my everyday life.  They are just friends.  But to make a point here, I have to label them.  Does that make any sense at all?  Hope so, cause I am the last person to want to offend anyone intentionally without merit.    

      • Anonymous

        First, just to address the language issue, personally, I prefer the term “gay community” as opposed to “gay lifestyle”.  Lifestyle just has all sorts of implications to it.  Personally, I feel that “community” more accurately reflects the situation.  We are a group of people who, for the most part, share similar life experiences, such as coming out.  “Lifestyle”, to me at least, just makes it sound that we all live the same way.  Being vegetarian is a “lifestyle”, making a choice to not eat meat, while being LGBT is just part of who we are.

        Now, on to the rest of your post:
        The issue I have with the idea of “traditional marriage” is that really, there is no such thing. I will agree that the idea of two men or two women being in a committed relationship is a relatively new idea, but so is marrying because you love someone.  Marriage used to be a property contract between two families.  In most cases, the woman did not have any choice in the matter, and hopefully she could learn to love her husband, but that was not the primary reason for the commitment.  

        Personally, I do see this as a clear cut issue.  I think that laws should be rationally based.  Something should be illegal if there is a clear legal or factual reason as to why it should be illegal.  If the government has no rational basis to make something illegal, then it should be legal.  I always hate it when people try to use the “slippery slope” argument.  “If we let them gays marry, soon we’ll legalize pedophilia.”  No, because there is a factual and rational basis for preventing those relationships.  I think that the people who want to make same sex marriage illegal view this as a moral issue.  The problem is that thinking something is morally wrong is not enough to make something illegal.  I have not been presented a rational legal reason as to why the government should prevent same sex marriage, so my logical conclusion is that same sex marriage should be legal. 

        I know from your point of view, you don’t want either side to feel that they lost.  Compromise is something that we should work toward in government, maybe then Congress wouldn’t be at such low approval ratings.  But that’s another debate.  The problem with compromise, in this situation at least, is that it should only be applied when both side have rational, legal arguments.  I have not seen any rational, legal argument from the other side about what interest the government has to prevent same sex couples from being included in marriage.  At best, they make appeals to “how nature intended it” or that “marriage is for procreation”, completely ignoring that a. monogamy is not really a natural concept when our bodies tell us to have as many children as possible to better guarantee the spread of our genes and b. there are heterosexual couples that cannot physically reproduce, yet they are allowed to marry.  At worst, they try to use their religious beliefs, completely disregarding the separation of church and state.

        • Maine2Florida

          You may be confused on the separation of church and state.  It is the principle that government must maintain an attitude of neutrality toward religion.  It has nothing to do with making laws unless it is a law against a religion or religious beliefs.  It was put in place to avoid persecution for your religious beliefs.  Most or many of our laws as they are today were created from the fundamental christian background of our founding fathers.  God, and Christianity has influenced almost every aspect of government to date.  I just wanted to be clear on that.   All laws are created at one time or another from someones idea that it was best for the greater good.  Other than “natural law”, everything else was man made from a bunch of people deciding what was right and wrong, and moral and immoral, and protective of the greater good of the community.  This is why you are having a hard time changing this one in particular.  You and I and may not see it this way, but the act of same sex relationships is not viewed as a normal act, and seen as immoral to many.  It goes against many many decades of beliefs and foundation to other laws and regulations.  Its not just a law you would be changing, but some of the basic moral and natural foundation that this country was founded on.  I mean, thats a big change for people to swallow. For me, I think as times change so should some laws, but for many, all the change is going hand in hand with the downfall of our great nation.  As for procreation… well that goes in with the natural law thing.  I see both sides as definitely having a rational argument.  I know that is hard for you to see because you are directly impacted by the decision.  I am not. I see the pain, hurt, and fear from both sides.  It really sucks.  I wish everyone could just get along!  LOL!  Seriously, though, I don’t have the answers.  No one here can say they are right and the other is wrong.  To me anyway.  That is why I am glad I don’t have to pick anyones side… I am not one that will be impacted or hurt in anyway from the outcome. 

          • Anonymous

            1. The separation of church and state does include making a law based on religious beliefs.  The first amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”.  For a simple example, Orthodox Jews do not believe in eating pork.  They cannot petition the government to outlaw pork because of the First Amendment.  If someone’s religious belief’s say that same sex marriage is wrong, they need more than that belief to make it illegal.

            2. It is a common misconception that all of the Founding Fathers were Christian and that this nation was founded on Christian beliefs.  In reality, a majority of the founding fathers were considered deists, they believed in some higher power, but not specifically Christianity.  Our base laws come from English Common Law, which developed out of feudalism.  While our laws may mimic some Christian teachings, there is a clear basis to them, without religion.  However, recently, there have been pushes to make “Christian” laws.

            3. Another misconception is that legalizing same sex marriage would mean that people must accept that marriage as “moral”.  People would still be free to disapprove of homosexuality.  Churches could still preach against it.

            4. People may consider same sex relationships as immoral, but as I’ve said, that is not a rational basis for a law.  Many people view adultery as immoral, but that is still legal.  

            While all of the things you mentioned may be reasons to prevent same sex marriage, I do not view them as rational, legal reasons.  They are based on personal opinions about same sex relationships.  On the other hand, supporters of same sex marriage do have a legal argument.  

            A. In Loving v. Virginia, marriage was ruled a fundamental right by the Supreme Court. This sets a precedent for all other courts to rule marriage as a right.

            B. The 14th Amendment protects the rights of all citizens, including a same sex couple’s right to marry as established in Loving v. Virginia.

            C. Therefore, laws against same sex marriage are unconstitutional.

            Now, whether you necessarily agree with my reasoning is not the issue. The issue is that I have not seen ANY type of legal reasoning from the opposition.  Five different federal courts have ruled that DOMA is unconstitutional.  The opposition has not been able to provide any convincing legal arguments.

            This may sound cold, but when you say that legalizing same sex marriage is a big change for people to swallow, I honestly don’t care.  Someone’s discomfort with a situation is not grounds enough to make something illegal.  If opponents of same sex marriage had clear evidence same sex marriage was harmful to society, then they could present a valid, legal reason.  There might be arguments on the opposition’s side that have some reasoning, but none of those arguments have any basis for a law.

          • Maine2Florida

            To be clear.. Originally, it was meant to protect citizens from the government making laws that would enforce one religion or condone another.  It was intended to protect the church from government.  Jefferson reflected his frequent speaking theme that the government is not to interfere with religion.The phrase was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, but is not in the actual Constitution. 

            You are right.  The pork thing is a perfect example of where separation was intended.  Now, I have heard the argument a million times from your side stating that marriage was not started as a religious ceremony.  Sooo now what? 

            Ok, moving on… it wasn’t cold to me to here you say you don’t care about it being hard to swallow… personally I dont care either.  Honestly, I don’t care either way.  The only thing I disagree with you on is that the opposition does have a valid and rational point.  You can make valid an rational points for anything.  Lets say homeless or poor people wanted to make the law enabling them to steal food as needed.  They could argue many valid points as to why it should be legal for them to do it.  Yes I know its far fetched, but I am trying to get you to see from outside your view point.  Like me.  I can honestly say I think everyone is right.  This is the problem.  You and I, or more so those for and against ssm can go back and forth all day on the issue with no resolve.  None. Each has a valid point to themselves.  Yes yours being a more legal basis I suppose, but none the less it will affect all those who oppose it.  How do you form a law that tailors to ALL of you, which overall, are Americans. I can argue many laws that I don’t like with rational, and some legal points, but that doesn’t mean someone else won’t be hurt or affected by it, or that the country would be a better place.   I honestly do think that same sex do deserve the same rights under the marriage law.  I just think, since it is a new concept, that it should be done as a different law and not infringe on the already existing law.  Or at least there be an amendment stating the differences between the original sense of the law, and the new sense of the law.  That is fair as can be.  Why wouldn’t you be happy with that?  That is the only thing that gets me. Will I roll around and cry and be upset if gay marriage is passed?  NO.  Do I respect married peoples reasoning for not wanting it passed? YES.  Do I think anyone who is not married or gay has a right to determine the issue?  Not really (yet here I am :) lol!  

          • Anonymous

            Maybe you can explain it, but I honestly have no idea how same sex marriage affects anyone but same sex couples.  

            “Do I respect married peoples reasoning for not wanting it passed?” – The only issue I have with this statement is that it implies that ALL married couples are against it.  There certainly are married couples against it, but there are married couples for it as well.

You may also like