Comments for: Maine should legalize gay marriage

Posted Oct. 30, 2012, at 10:48 a.m.
Last modified Oct. 30, 2012, at 2:09 p.m.

Question 1: Do you want to allow the state of Maine to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples? Permitting gay couples to marry will uphold equal treatment required by the U.S. Constitution, promote family values and protect religious beliefs. The ballot initiative is a matter of fairness and, in the …

Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

The Bangor Daily News encourages 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

    This is an issue of basic human rights.    If fundamentalist Christians are guaranteed the freedom to form legal, tax exempt organizations that can lobby against gay marriage, then gay people should be guaranteed the freedom to form legal marriages. 

    • After all that has been said, I have still yet to hear a (sane and/or logical) non-religious argument against SSM. Basically because there isn’t one. I suppose though, the religious argument against it doesn’t meet the sane and/or logical requirements either.

      • Anonymous

        In case you missed my comment, here’s a non-religious argument I could further elaborate on in much, much more detail if time permitted. So, yes, there is a non-religious argument – a logical one to boot – to be made against gay marriage.

         “Permitting gay couples to marry will uphold equal treatment required
        by the U.S. Constitution, promote family values and protect religious
        beliefs. The ballot initiative is a matter of fairness and, in the end,
        care for one another.”

        The assumption in the editorial gay marriage will uphold equal treatment  required by the Constitution is absolutely presumptuous. The Supreme Court has never ruled on gay marriage. If anything the argument used in prior rulings on marriage don’t even remotely apply even though gay activists maintain they do.

        Furthermore, it will not promote family values. Children want and deserve a mom and a dad, not the less stable relationships of two moms or two dads. Promoting gay marriage will only ensure this does not happen. Regrettably those who pursue this type of arrangement are only looking out for themselves and not the ultimate welfare of children.

        f

        • Anonymous

          Children want and deserve a mom and a dad, not the less stable relationships of two moms or two dads. 

          Oh PLEASE. Then we better outlaw divorce once again as well.  I know as many stable gay and lesbian relationships as I do straight – perhaps more stable. 

          That’s just another excuse for the continued discrimination and bigotry.

          • Anonymous

            I said, “children want” a mom-and-dad arrangement. I also stated they deserved a mom and a dad because the latest research at a Texas U. shows they tend to do better with a mom and a dad. I’m not at all surprised by this research because mother nature has provided moms and dads complementary qualities for the good of children. Call it bigotry, but I stand with the welfare of children in this case, not the desires of adults for their own pleasure.

          • Anonymous

            You mean the research that the author has since backed away from, due to errors in methodology?  That study?

            “I take pains in the study to say this is not about saying gay or lesbian parents are inherently bad.” – Mark Regnerus in an interview with Focus on the Family

            Your position also requires you to ignore all of the other research that says children do just as well with same sex parents. But, with you, ideology matters more than the well being of children.

          • Anonymous

            Regnerus’s research is by far the most comprehensive so date. He did not back down on his own research analysis however, which corroborates what I’ve asserted so far. What Regnerus has stated is that essentially some gay parents are better than straight parents. But in making public policy we can’t simply be guided by anecdotal cases. We all know there are bad parents, heterosexual or other. This however does not negate the fact children tend to be better off with a mom and and dad. 

          • Anonymous

            Regneus’s study only looked at two same sex couples.  That doesn’t sound very comprehensive to me.

            “He did not back down on his own research analysis however, which corroborates what I’ve asserted so far.” – No, his analysis showed that children do better in stable, two parent homes. This is not news. You cannot say that his study showed children do better in homes with opposite sex parents because he did not compare opposite sex parents to same sex parents. He compared opposite sex parents to parents who at some point had a same sex relationship.

            “This however does not negate the fact children tend to be better off with a mom and and dad. ” – Except studies don’t show this. Studies show that children do better in stable two parent homes, the gender of the parents doesn’t matter.

        •  You argument is wrong, but it is non-religious. There are no facts related to the effectiveness of SSM parents vs Hetero ones. The scope is just too big to get any kind of accuracy. Socioeconomic factors play a bigger role than who is or isn’t married to who as far as parenting goes. One thing that is known, is that a loving home whether it be a heterosexual home, or a homosexual home, is much better for children than foster care or an orphanage.  So, you get a 50, you argument carried no logic, but is was non-religous

        • SierraTango

          Baloney. I grew up with just a mother — my heterosexual father did not value the sanctity of marriage very much, since he did it several times and never could stay in one for more than a few years. If my mother had re-married and had chosen a woman instead of a man, it would’ve been wonderful for me to have two parents actively in my life, and I probably would’ve had a better, healthier, more well-adjusted childhood.

          Having two parents is a good thing for a child. It makes no difference whether they’re of mixed genders or the same gender.

          – – –

          Clarification: what I wrote above was not a swipe at single parents. What I was getting at is that the ideal situation for any child is to have two parents, regardless of the parents’ genders. We should encourage loving committed couples to raise families, whether they’re straight or LGBT.

          • Anonymous

             I’m sorry your childhood didn’t work as well as it could have.But was it your intention to knock single parents who are in most cases doing the best they can,often with little or no emotional,moral or financial support?I know some rotten people who were raised in the best traditional circumstances and some fine people who have had more strikes against them than Charlie Brown’s baseball team.

          • SierraTango

            Nope, not my intention at all. I apologize for giving anyone that impression. I’d be the first to admit that having a great single parent is far, far better than having two mediocre or crappy parents. I would never, ever want to knock single parents. My mother did the best she could. All I meant was that it would have been easier on both of us if there had been an additional parent to carry some of the weight… and if the additional parent had been another mom, that would’ve been just fine.

          • Anonymous

             I understand.From your other posts I know you’re a supporter of Yes On One.Two moms,two dads,one of each,single parents-the great majority do the best for their kids Many thanks for your input and support.Peace and blessings.Have a great night.

        • Anonymous

          You are really ignorant Whawell. I am gay and I created two children with a woman that I was legally married to. Problem is whawell is that it didn’t work out cause I was gay and thought I could “change”. This woman I married could have been your daughter. Would you want your daughter to marry a gay man???????????? Yes gays can marry in all fifty states….they can marry your daughter or your son…someting to think about.

        • Anonymous

          Put forward but still invalid.  Like the King in Daniel, your arguments have been weighed in the balances and found wanting.

        • Anonymous

           So, according to your perfect logic displayed in this post, we await the rulings of the Supreme Court to get a right? How about this logic, the Constitution gives all people the same rights. Some people try to abridge these rights, and until a suit is brought before the Court, they might get away with it. So you have it backwards. Rights are granted that laws abridge. The Supreme Court has never ruled that straight marriage is legal, but that didn’t stop me from getting married, because I assumed 2 people can get married. But apparently you want to qualify that for some reason. 

          For your side, when the US Supreme Court rules against laws that discriminate against gays, you can add that to reasons you want a theocracy installed here in the U.S.

        • Anonymous

          “…less stable relationships of two moms or two dads.”

          Perhaps if they could get married it would increase the stability of same-sex relationships. And wouldn’t that be a good thing? Not that same-sex relationships are necessarily unstable. I know a lesbian couple that has been together 34 years and very successfully raised a child. Many heterosexual couples would do well to emulate them.

          Children want and deserve parents who love them. While both a mom and dad may be the “best” arrangement — or maybe not — for any number of reasons there are a lot of children who don’t have that option.

          I think one can argue that two parents, of any gender arrangement, are better than one. Or at least it makes the job easier to have two people in the parental role. Since many same-sex couples are raising children, I think it;s to society’s advantage to recognize that fact and assist them by granting them the benefits of being married.

          All the same-sex couples I know want basically the same things my wife and I do. There is no secret “homosexual agenda.” The gay and lesbian couples I know want decent jobs, a house, maybe a family, enough money to pay the taxes, and a bit left over to enjoy life with. What’s wrong with that? Oh — and they want to be married.  Let ’em.

        • Anonymous

          the supreme court does not have to rule on gay marriage for the argument to hold water. what was said IS, if gays marry, it will uphold the equal treatment guaranteed by the constitution…as in, it is not being upheld now because not everyone is being treated equally. get it?
            

      • Anonymous

        FEAR

        •  “Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.”

      • Anonymous

        And, it would appear that MRWALDO2010 gave you a sane and logical answer.

        • Anonymous

          Really?  I didn’t see one…

        • I’m not exactly sure you know what sane and logical mean… His argument was ripped apart and was shown to be not only illogical, but the raving of someone with a borderline personality disorder.

          • Anonymous

            “the raving of someone with a borderline personality disorder.” – Sounds about as logical as the anti-equality side can be.

          • Anonymous

            And you are quaified to diagnos someone with a borderline personality disorder, based on what credentials?
            Answer: NONE.
            And his response was perfectly correct.

          • Anonymous

            Well, if by correct, you mean incorrect, then yes.

          • Anonymous

            And, as is typical. you failed to answer the question.
            Therefore, based simply on your false, unqualifed diagnoses of the gentleman’s comments, any credibility you may have had, you have no longer.
            Your pro-gay marriage gang is quite simply tanamount to the child screaming for candy in the grocery store. Mother’s attempt to quite the child are to no avail, therefore mother caves in and buys the child candy to shut him up. Exactly what you folks do.
            Your agenda is to keep screaming until the rest of us give in……NEVER!
            Not yesterday, not today, not tomorrow, not EVER. Gay marriage is nothing more than an attempt to leagalize a deviant sexual lifestyle, nothing more.
            And if the gay marriage proposal gets voted down, you will keep, like the screaming child, keep screaming, and those opposed to gay marriage will continue to fight you.
            And, based on your lack of credibility, you are no longer deserving or worthy of any further response.

          • Anonymous

            HAHAHAHAHA you certainly have quite the imagination, litte one.  Sweetie, why don’t you lay down, you aren’t making any sense.  Let the grown ups talk about the issues, mmmkay? 

          • Anonymous

            Another childish, immature remark.
            You to have joined the ranks of the unworthy and underseving of any further comment or response.

          • Anonymous

            That’s what you said last time.  Go to bed sweetie, you’re not well.

          •  Right, and Moses wasn’t a schizophrenic….  Please put the tea down and walk away. We can stage an intervention if that would help you.

          • Anonymous

            And your claim that Moses was schizophrenic is based on your diagnostic credentials?

            Your remarks are nothing short of childish and immature, which also puts you in the category of unworthy and underserving of any further acknowledgement or response.

          • Anonymous

            He talked to a bush.  Sounds pretty crazy to me.

          • Actually if you take the story of Moses as fact, and do a postmortem psychoanalysis, then yes according to the DSM-IV, and from the sneak peeks I have seen of the DSM-V, Moses fits the criteria for schizophrenia. When you follow orders from a talking burning bush (i.e. auditory hallucination), exhibit extreme religiosity, and have grandiose ideation, then a diagnosis of schizophrenia is quite fitting. You’ve just been taken to school, class dismissed.

      • Anonymous

         In the past years I have argued and presented ample evidence for my arguments against gay marriage. You know that as well as I do. I am not going to argue on and on endlessly as you and many posters in the venue are trying to entice me into. If the argument was just between the two of us (not the twelve responders I’ve had so far to my comment) and  if I had plenty of time on my hands, I would certainly do so because I feel very confident that I can with reasonable people.

        •  I will give you that you have argued the point tirelessly. You have yet to produce an ounce of evidence, and what you consider evidence can be shredded rather easily. First of all you are trying to work from an impossible standpoint. “What makes a good parent?” That single question alone could never be scientifically answered in order to get a baseline to compare hetero parents vs homosexual parents vs single parents. Not to mention you completely disregard the single largest influence on parenting, Socioeconomic status.

      • Anonymous

         I’ve referred to a study by Professor Regnerus of the U. of Texas. Rather than studying individual cases as you suggested, he made a study of a very large group of families to determine how children of gay and straight parents compare. This sampling by far is the largest study of this kind that has ever been done. It shows children of straight parents are better off than children of gay parents. I’m not making this up. It’s there for examination and scrutiny. Besides, the professor is a well respected researcher in academia, and admits something we all know, that is, that some gay parents do a better job of parenting than straight parents do. That said, however, we must bear in mind public policy must not be based on anecdotal cases, for we all know there are bad parents regardless of sexual orientation.

        As you can see, this is one of the many non-religious arguments I’ve presented. If you claim you have not seen any, maybe you have not been paying too much attention to my posts in the past year.

        • Anonymous

          “It shows children of straight parents are better off than children of gay parents.” – No, it didn’t.  Stop lying.  The study only looked at 2 same sex couples.  The rest were children with parents who later had a same sex relation of some kind.  They were NOT raised by same sex couples, they were raised in broken homes.

          But, to you, adherence to an ideology is more important than the well being of children. To you, it is more important to harm loving same sex couples than it is to put children in loving, stable homes. You are a disgrace and you should be ashamed of yourself. But, feeling shame, or anything else for that matter, is too much to expect from someone as heartless as you.

        •  You are wrong again, his sampling of gay parents was not equal to his sample of hetero ones. Therefore the data can be made to look in your favor due to the lack of data. 2 couples, one good one bad, you get to say that 50% of gay couples are bad parents. His standard of a “good parent” also gets called into question. The variables are numerous. No scientist goes by one study, in order for theory to become proof the experiment has to be replicable and get the same results. You cite one study, one study does not proof make. Not to mention how much the scientific and psychological community has found wrong with the study. So again, your argument is not logical.

    • Anonymous

      Would the homosexual community be willing to pursue all the legal rights that heterosexual marriages allow, whether it be tax privledges, estate or health issues, for homosexuals instead of just riding in on the coat tails of decades of legislative work for heterosexual marriages?
      Homosexual marriage is different enough that this group of people should be required to pursue these legal and tax issues for themselves….anybody in this country who wants a tax or other type of privledge has to go to congress and ask for this…they dont get them just because they think they deserve them….years of studies to the benefits to society when couples choose heterosexual marriage was a driving force behind the request and granting of these tax or anyother privledges granted by congress……If homosexuals want the same tax and estate rights as heterosexual marriages, pursue them like those who think heterosexual marriage is a positive force for our country and thus due these special tax, estate and other priveldges given legislatively to heterosexual marriage…
      These legal privledges were pursued and built up over time by legislation…..these privledges were created legislatively based on the heterosexual marriage. Clearly, these priveledges were not under consideration for homosexual marriages, and thus should not be ‘just granted’ without the same amount of effort as was put in in the past.

      Get same sex marriage passed, and then pursue whatever tax, health or estate issues you want….just like the heterosexual community did…i think when the homosexual population sits at about 2 to 4% of the population, they should be willing to work to create these privledges if they truly believe in them and feel they have some redeeming value as heterosexual marriages have proved such…..not just get them handed to them, because they have 5 states that believe as they do….

      • Anonymous

        My concern is what if a church refuses to marry a same-sex couple.  Are they discriminating because they are following their religious beliefs?  Does this infringe upon freedom of religion?

        • Anonymous

          Nope, the law specifically states that churches can refuse to marry same sex couples.  A church can refuse to marry and couple for any reason.  The Catholic church can refuse to marry divorced persons and there are many churches that refuse to marry interracial couples.

          • Guest

            But a banquet hall won’t be able refuse to hold a reception for a gay couple… they’ll be sued for discrimination. 

          • Anonymous

            Then you should have complained in 2005 when Maine passed an anti-discrimination law.  

          • Guest

            Personally I think that anyone refusing business for any reason is foolish in this economy. I was just making the statement. I also don’t think churches should be allowed to refuse the right to “partner” two gay people. (You can replace “partner” with any term you would like, except for the only one that is currently taken.)

          • Anonymous

            Hmm, I think I’ll replace it with “husband” or “wife” depending on the person.

          • Guest

            I’d be find with you calling their partnership either. It would sound kind of funny to say “we are going to get “wifed” but that’s entirely up to them! 

          • Anonymous

            No, no, it seems you have misunderstood my comment.  I wouldn’t call my husband my partner, I would call him my husband.  We wouldn’t get “husbaned” we would get married, you know, because we would be getting a marriage license.

          • Anonymous

            You can call it partnering all you want. It’s how our government grants legal benefits and privileges based on marital status and the civil marriage license that means we are asking for civil marriage.

          • Anonymous

            That’s already illegal. Nothing to do with same-sex marriage.

        • Anonymous

          Please, please read the question.  Do not believe the stories from out of state or Canada.  Obvioulsy they did not word their law correctly.

          • Anonymous

            Yeah, aren’t those ads full of falsehoods something else?  At least they’d be totally false here.

        • ChuckGG

          Just refer to the First Amendment.  When, ever, in USA history has a church been forced by the courts to perform ANY religious ceremony, much less a SSM ceremony?  It has never happened.

          Churches are separate entities, not part of the legal, secular world, and as such as not taxed as they are not part of our government.  Consider them foreign embassies when it comes to our legal system.

          That is why I said back in 2009 and before that the churches do not have a dog in this fight.  SSM is all about civil marriage not religious marriage.  The churches can continue to not marry couples of different races (recently happened and was in the news).  Churches can do whatever the hell they want to do.  It’s called the First Amendment.  But, for this right, they also must abide by not inserting their particular laws into our secular governmental system that is there to serve ALL the people, not just their version of what the laws should be.

        • Anonymous

          Churches are free to refuse marriage ceremonies for anyone, for any reason. Mosques do not marry non-muslims, Catholic churches do not marry excommunicated Catholics… there is even a story from THIS YEAR of a church in the south that refused to marry a black couple!

          The First Amendment guarantees religious freedom for churches in this regard, Maine’s civil marriage law cannot trump the Constitution in this regard.

          • Anonymous

            And even after Vatican II and wise rulings by some Bishops, some backward priests won’t even consider jointly officiated weddings between Protestants and Catholics.  Happened in our family (in another state).

        • Anonymous

          everyone BUT the churches are cooked…..

          and it wont be long when pastors and priests will be charged with hate speech crimes when they speak out against homosexuality to thier flocks..this is ALSO not covered under this referendum against natural law…

          • Anonymous

             Quick. Since you can see the future (“and it wont be long when”….), can you send me the lotto numbers for this weekend?

      • It sounds to me like you’ve come to some sort of acceptance that question 1 will pass, and are now thinking of other ways for the gay folk to pay their penance. What benefits given to straight couples should not automatically apply to gay couples? Can you give a few examples?

        Ending double standards as soon as is possible is the best route to equality, not perpetuating two sets of guidelines based on sexual orientation, or any other attribute.

        • ChuckGG

          He seems to be missing the point.  Civil marriage is civil marriage and it is (will be) blind to the genders of the participants.  There is not “civil marriage” and “gay civil marriage.”  It’s just “civil marriage.”  There is not “inter-racial civil marriage,” either.

          You are quite right in your comment – paying the penance.  Well, the old folks are dying off.  In another couple of generations this whole discussion will seems as ridiculous as the discussions against inter-racial marriages were in the 1960’s.

          • Anonymous

            Absolutely true.It’s a shame that good and decent people like you in other states might have to wait a little longer but those of us fighting the good fight are doing what we can.I’ve been getting R robocalls this week.The lies and fear are even worse than I would’ve thought.They’re all going to a nice warm spot instead of where they think they are going.Glad I won’t join them.

        • Anonymous

          Maine has said no to this behavior many times in the past, and it keeps coming back. Not because its right or wrong, but because the homosexual population continues to push it onto society….

          Why cant single filers have the same tax breaks as married couples?..because it was a break legislatively passed for married couples…using the definition of marriage and the benefits of marriage to society……pass your tax breaks using the same criteria for homosexual marriage, thats all…if it is right and good for society or based on whatever positives it may hold (as the heterosexual marriage had to do to ask for these tax breaks) then you should have no problem…

          • People’s opinions change. Laws, customs, mores – they change as well, as do those that represent us. Do you expect that if Maine says “yes” this time, that the “no” folks won’t be back to attempt to repeal it again? Of course they will, and they have that right. I won’t begrudge them that right.

            I am thankful we have the opportunity to vote on this. Though I have no issue with Republican government, I’d love to see more direct democracy initiatives.

            What criteria would gay couples not meet that straight couples do? I’m not getting your point. Examples?

          • ChuckGG

            Correction:  Maine said “no” to this ONCE before, in 2009.

            So, married couples with no children and married couples who cannot procreate due to medical or age issues, therefore do not deserve to file jointly on their income taxes?

            You are trying to argue a “separate but equal” scenario and that is not how it works, nor should it.

          • Anonymous

            Actually, you have said yes to a people veto once…. only one time and we only lost by 4%. Nice try, though.

      • notateapartier

        When I married, I did not first say “I do”, then pursue the legal and tax issues that come with being married.  It was handed to me without any thought.  I guess you could say I rode on the coattails of decades of legislative work for heterosexual marriages.  

        You might be surprised that those who are gay are not really that different from those who are straight, and the relationships are very similar. There is no need to reinvent the wheel for any couple who marries, no matter what their sexual orientation.

    • Anonymous

      Absolutely.  It’s Marriage, not gay or straight marriage.  It’s human rights, not gay or straight rights.  This is ridiculous.  Everyone wants to quote “the Bible says….” Well, last time I knew the Bible isn’t the LAW, it’s a book written apparently to scare people to death. 

      • Anonymous

         I’m so glad Houlton has some people who can think straight.The amount of misinformation and hate up there is terrifying.

      •  Well stated

      • Anonymous

        Agreed. If only there were more people like you living here in Houlton. 

      • Maryr1054

        Shame on you the Bible was never written to scare people obviously you are not a Christian

        •  All fairytale books were written to frighten children into doing what their parent tell them. Ever read the real Grimm’s Fairytales? Not the Disney-fied version, but the real fairytales. The Bible is no different, it uses fear to get people to obey. The New Testament is a little better than the old, but considering the comments on here, I’d say most people have forgotten the good parts like unconditional love and acceptance. Jesus would vote for SSM.

    • Anonymous

      We should not be accepting as normal  people with same sex attraction.  This is nothing more than insanity.People with same sex attraction do not believe in marriage, what they want is acceptance of their deviant lifestyle.  

      • Anonymous

        You must know this as fact because you are gay, right?  

      • Anonymous

        Let’s not try this again.  Just as false as before.  Give it up.

      • Anonymous

        No, what I want is to be treated equally by our government, because I pay taxes just as you do yet I do not have access to the 1,100+ benefits and privileges of civil marriage.

        I could care less if you accept me or my “deviant lifestyle” of volunteering, donating to charity, and helping my neighbors. No one I know personally opposes my relationship with my soul mate, I’m sure if you got to know me your attitudes on this issue would change.

      • Anonymous

         It is sad that Theism has replaced Freedom in this country.

        • Anonymous

           It is also sad that as christians we tend to think are beliefs should be forced on others.  Let us not forget  that we fought two World Wars against Christian troops from Germany. The words Gott mit uns (God [is] with us) adorned the belt buckles of both the Kaiser’s troops and Hitler’s storm troopers.

      • Peter Dawson

        We don’t want your acceptance.  We do want ts to be treated fairly, and not as second-class citizens based on your perceived a moral superiority.  You language makes clear that you consider yourself morally superior.  Should that entitle you to deny rights to those you deem to be inferior?  (Sounds very reminiscent of the attitudes of Southern whites during the civil rights protests). 

    • Anonymous

       Marriage is a certain state endorsement. It serves no purpose to legally endorse the union of same-sex couples that cannot even bear children of their own. Gays who have children were either once married to someone of the opposite sex, acquired them through in vitro fertilization or artificial insemination, or adopted them. All of these means except the first one listed are very wrong in that they either take human lives in their most nascent forms of development, deprive offspring of at least one of their parents, or do not give children the types of parents they desire, which is a mom and a dad. Notably, the parents of gay children made the wrong decision when they resorted to these measures or chose a gay lifestyle over a heterosexual one, as a divorced person does when he or she hooks up with someone of the same sex.

      Incidentally, as a veteran I am not opposed to gays having a Constitutional right to lobby.

      • Anonymous

        ” It serves no purpose to legally endorse the union of same-sex couples that cannot even bear children of their own.” How about the endorsement of hetero couples who can’t or won’t procreate.

        My youngest brother and his wife had no kids. She couldn’t have any. So they shouldn’t have gotten married? (I said that 25 years ago.)

        So the state should revoke their marriage license?

        • Anonymous

          Acoutian, I think you know the answer already. No one is obligated to procreate. But the state knows that children are likely to be conceive when a male and a female copulate. It also knows that  those who can’t conceive or won’t for some unknown reason, there is always the adoption option of parent-less children who want nothing more than a mom and a dad. 

          • Anonymous

            What makes you really think kids care if they have 2 dads, 2 moms or one of each? Kids in ANY stable and loving home environment will flourish and be happy and healthy.

          • Anonymous

            Unfortunately for those children, whawell doesn’t care.  The only thing that matters is that same sex couples don’t raise children, because it is somehow “wrong” and offends his religious sensibilities.  People like whawell put ideology before the well being of children.

    • Anonymous

      Bangorian, This is the only time i have ever agreed with you ! :)

  • Anonymous

    This is a really nice, thoughtful editorial. It is clear, logical, and respectful.

  • Anonymous

    Live and Let Live, It is a Free Country. 

    • Anonymous

      You are right,it is in fact a free country. So I am free to vote NO on question # 1, without fear of being persecuted ?

      • Millicent

        so, you’re afraid of being persecuted, while persecuting another group of people? 

        makes sense. :/ 

        • Anonymous

          Well, the anti-equality side isn’t really known for “making sense”.

          • Anonymous

            True.  They seem to be more concerned w/making “cents.”  And dollars.  And if they have to step over a human to do it, they will…mostly in the name of “Jesus,” too.

          • Anonymous

            actually, the homosexuals looking to marry are the gold-diggers looking cash in on everyone else’s backs via the tax code…

            this is not a religous issue

            Homesexual marriage does NOT equal heterosexual marriage

            therefore, homosexual marriage does NOT deserve the same tax breaks as heterosexual marriage

            get rid of the the rem marriage, call it a civil union and then we can talk

            an extremely small minority of voters should not expect the majority of remaining voters to side with them when they are not willing to comprimise

            No on 1 next Tuesday

          • Anonymous

            Oh, you.  You are just soooo hilarious.  I mean, all I can do when I read your posts is laugh.  Because I realize that this is your last desperate attempt at relevence in society.  You are trying sooo hard to make sure your homophobia remains law and as you see your bigotry becomming less and less socially acceptable, you rant and rave.  And, to me, that is simple one of the funniest things I have ever seen.

          • Anonymous

            Not a logical progression.  And, even in 2009, 48% is hardly an “extremely small group of voters”.  Your compromise is empty, not even much of a concession.

          • Anonymous

            So Jake, your argument boils down to one simple thing – what you call it.  As long as you call it a civil union, they can get all “your” heterosexual tax breaks like anyone else… just so long as you dont use the word marriage.  Your arguments are weak and pathetic; but they do serve a greater good.  When people who are unsure how they feel about the issue, they’ll read your rants and see just how irrational your arguement is, and decide that’s not how they feel at all.  So go on spreading hate and venom, the rest of us will see them for what they are.

          • Anonymous

            I’ve stated many times that it would be fair and constitutional if we eliminated civil marriage altogether, and instituted civil unions for all couples who wish to enter into that arrangement.

            But access to civil marriage is what we’re voting on, so I’ve voted YES on question 1.

            Besides, the people who oppose same-sex marriage also oppose civil unions just as strongly, so to say that we would have an easier time focusing on civil unions hasn’t been accurate historically.

          • Anonymous

            Where in the heck are you getting this information from.  omg

          • Anonymous

             Or releasing names.MUM has acted with great honor throughout with all the sludge and worse that has been cast their way.As a heterosexual,I’m very proud to donate to them!

      • Anonymous

        You are free to vote no, but I am free to criticize you for it. Isn’t freedom of speech great?

      • Anonymous

         Voting Booths are private, who would ever know?
        More importantly, Marriages are private, mind your own business and if you don’t want a gay marriage, don’t have one.

        • Anonymous

          as long as ‘marriage’ is tied to tax breaks, it IS my business…

          come up with a new term, until then, the answer is NO 

          • Anonymous

            “come up with a new term” – No.

          • Anonymous

            Jack, you’re simply showing that you’re afraid.  Afraid that if gays are able to marry, that will give them some legitimacy.  Currently, you (think) that you can oppress gays, call them names, discriminate against them, and powerfully show that you aren’t anything at all like them.  But if they became “legitimate” then they’d be one step closer to you, and that would threaten your masculinity.

            Gays who want to marry other gays aren’t remotely interested in you.  As masculine as you are, men who like men prefer other men who like men.  You’re not even on their radar.  Allowing gays the same rights to marry that you have – and have never had to fight for – won’t mean that YOU have to marry one.

            Instead, be a MAN and show us how strong you are not to be threatened by other men who are out of the closet.

      • Anonymous

        Yes, this is still America and you are free to vote NO.  I, too, am free…free to compile a list of businesses which have NO signs at their place of business (not in the right-of-way).
        And I am free to choose to take my business elsewhere.
        I’ve been writing the companies down as I travel out and about.
        Heads up, folks.    Shop Local, not Loco. 

        • ptkitty

          So intolerant of you to target businesses who disagree with your point of view.

          Do you want someone to compile a list of businesses which have YES signs on them?  We are all free to take our business elsewhere.

          You are Heads up all right.

          • Anonymous

            Go ahead.  I welcome you to try to boycott all of the businesses that support marriage equality.  You should probably start by getting rid of your computer, as both Apple and Microsoft both support marriage equality.  Oh, you might also want to know that just by coming onto this website, you are supporting Google, which also supports marriage equality.

          • Anonymous

            LOL….like Apple, MS, and Google wouldn’t

            man, you simpletons are soooooooooo easily played with your own emotions

          • Anonymous

            That’s it, keep coming onto this website and supporting same sex marriage.

          • SierraTango

            General Mills supports it too. Better check your pantry…

          • Anonymous

            General Mills: great products.

          • Anonymous

            Speaking of being emotional … and insulting …

          • Anonymous

             And the combined earnings of those three companies would equal plenty.Good for them.

          • Anonymous

            So ignorant of any local business to take a political stand publicly.

          • Anonymous

            I know right. 
            “Hey, you know that really controversial ballot measure this election?”
            “Yeah, what about it?”
            “We should totally take a public stand on it, thereby alienating about half of our customers!”
            “Are we a large company like Google or Microsoft that really wouldn’t be affected by any backlash?”
            “Nope, we’re a small, local business that could be ruined by this decision!”
            “This sounds BRILLIANT!”

          • Anonymous

            One way or the other they have the courage to make a stand for what they believe in. 

          • Anonymous

            So does the Taliban.

          • Anonymous

            …and here I was thinking there was both yes and no signs. A statment like that makes me wonder if someone like you hides behind the support of SSM as an exuse to hate those that don’t.  

          • Anonymous

            Nice pass off. Hate is a christian / muslim thing.  I am neither.

          • Anonymous

            ROTFLMAO!!!

            sooooooooooo easy!

          • Anonymous

            You mean…like Ben and Jerry’s?

            Yeah…..they definitely don’t have the right to take a political stand.

          • Anonymous

            itwasntmyidea never said that a business didn’t have a right to take a stand, just that it was stupid to do so.  Also, there is a big difference between Ben and Jerry’s and a local business.

          • Anonymous

            Please tell all the readers of this thread who own their own small, medium or large business what you think the big difference is and why you presumably think Ben and Jerry’s should be exempt from bad public relations but a Maine apple orchard should not be.  

          • Anonymous

            The difference is that Ben and Jerry is a large company that could take a hit to their bottom line if there was backlash.  I never said that Ben and Jerry’s should be exempt from any public relations.  The entire point of my post was that a large, nationwide company like Ben and Jerry’s and other large companies are better equipped to deal with any backlash from publicly supporting marriage equality, making their decision less stupid.  But, apparently, you completely missed that and read what you wanted to read. 

          • Anonymous

            So…you agree that Ben and Jerry are individuals and have full right to express their individual opinions even though they are a “national company” because they are big business?  

            By the way, do you really need me to format your arguments for you?

          • Anonymous

            I wouldn’t support a business that supported the KKK , Skinheads, or any other group that believes in INEQUALITY….so why should i support businesses that do not believe Gay people should be allowed the same basic human rights as everyone else?

          • Anonymous

            You really are nasty.  If you can reread the comment it says if they have NO in their businesses they can chose not shop there based on their beliefs.  Free speech anyone?  Wow.

          • Anonymous

            The opponents of gay and lesbian equality are famous for the number of boycotts they call for on a regular basis. NOM has specifically targeted judges up for re-election because they voted to uphold our Constitution at the expense of pandering to discrimination.

            You can pretend that this is a one-sided issue when individuals voice their disapproval of discrimination, but the fact of the matter is that BOTH SIDES engage in these boycotts, and businesses that don’t want to get caught up in this social issue should simply keep quiet about their personal views.

          • ChuckGG

            Actually, I would like such a list so I could take my business there.  Of course, if the trend follows, it likely would be easier to create a “NO” list than a “YES” list.  It certainly would be shorter and likely grow shorter over time.

            I still do not think the anti-SSM people seem to “get it.”  To us, seeing a sign that says “NO” on SSM is no different than seeing one that says:  “We don’t serve blacks, Asians, Italians, Jews, or Seniors.”

            You think you are standing on religious high-ground and we see you as little different than Hitler trying to justify his Final Solution.

          • Anonymous

            http://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/business-leaders-equality.pdf

            I don’t know if you are specifically looking for local businesses, but here is a list of some larger companies that support marriage equality.

          • Anonymous

             Sorry it’s an old trick that the dirtballs like Tony Perkins tried,usually without any real success.How’s that shoe fit?

          • Peter Dawson

            I have no problem patronizing businesses that endorse candidates that I do not support.  The difference in this situation is that these businesses feel justified to treating a minority group as second-class citizens by withholding rights that the majority enjoys  — all based on their perceived moral superiority — that is bigotry, pure and simple.  I will not do business with bigots.

        • Anonymous

          Love it! Shop Local, Not Loco! (BTW, that’s part of the reason I will NEVER go to ChikFilA; that, and I don’t eat chicken!)

        • Anonymous

           APPLAUSE!I love that last line!I hope to see your list online.

      • notateapartier

        Why would you be persecuted? If you want to advertise your views, tell your friends, family, and co-workers about them. If you prefer to keep it to yourself, the voting booth curtain is there for a reason.

      • Anonymous

        You are indeed free to vote how you want on this issue without fear of persecution. Has that been in doubt at all?

        I would hope you would vote YES on question 1 though, because extending equal treatment to ALL Maine families is a good thing. How does the fact that same-sex couples get married harm you in any way?

      • Anonymous

        Nobody is persecuting you, just disagreeing with you.  I’m sure there’s a label for wanting to be a martyr.

      • Anonymous

        Well, and that’s the thing….we’ll see how people really feel about this question when they go to the polls. Saying out loud you’re not for SSM just invites the hate. The privacy of a booth is all a person needs. :-)

  • Anonymous

    “In his state of the union address in 1953, President Dwight Eisenhower spoke of ending discrimination against minorities” It would be interesting to know if he would agree with this being used in this context. Though I think they are misrepesenting his statements. Now before everyone gets overwhelmingly alarmed, and send hateful post, this is just my opinion under the Constitution of Untied States, and in no way reflects President Eisenhowers thoughts since he has been long dead.
    I can disagree withsomething, and not hate someone. I already know what some others believe. Though they say not, the next stop will be forcing clergy to marry. (would not you consider that discrimnation) Yes, I know the Constituion says “Freedom of Religion” But, we have seen things change.

    • It hasnt happened in other countries that have had SSM for 11 years or more. Maybe a rare case or two but then again here we sue for 80 mill because we spill coffee. 
      I would like the right s of marriage without having to marry someone I dont love. 

      • Anonymous

        “we sue for 80 mill because we spill coffee. ” – Don’t forget patenting rounded corners…

      • Millicent

        their coffee temp -180 degrees – caused third degree burns. I used to bring this case up as well, until I learned what really happened – plus the fact that McDonalds had received many complaints about their coffee temps (700 of them, plus injuries too)  before this woman got severely burned. 

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants

        Though I absolutely agree with the rest of your post. 

        • Anonymous

          Yes! I am glad that I am not the only one that researched that case. Its used as an example as a frivolous case, but once you read about it, that is not the case at all!

          • Anonymous

            More than that, it was shown at trial that McDonalds, to save money, used an incredibly cheap brand of coffee that had to be served extremely hot or it smelled AWFUL, so that’s why they had their coffee pots set to brew MUCH hotter than anything the average homeowner would ever have at home.  We’ve all spilled coffee on ourselves at home and never been scalded.  But McDonalds wanted to save money by serving cheap coffee extremely hot so that it didn’t smell bad.  The jury’s award, get this, was ONE DAY OF COFFEE SALES.  They were smart people.

          • Anonymous

            another “frivolous” case to look at is the guy that sued the telaphone company after he was hit in the phone booth. Not a frivolous case at all.

        • Anonymous

          My keruig brewer puts out coffee at 192°, which is proper brewing temperature.

          Did the woman get severely burned? Yes. Was it traumatic, and did it require hospitalization and recovery? YES. Was it a bad situation that she found herself in? Absolutely, and I do not mean to diminish the real injury she received as a result of her accident.

          But, was it McDonald’s fault? No. She was holding a styrofoam cup between her thighs in a moving vehicle and the top popped off. That was her own fault, but a big corporation makes a nice target to get $ to pay those legitimate medical bills, so the jury found in her favor.

          • SierraTango

            Brewing temperature and serving temperature are two different things. The temperature of the water being poured over the ground coffee might be 192, but it’s not going to stay at 192 when the brewed coffee lands in your mug — or in the carafe of a traditional drip coffee brewer. 

    • Anonymous

      It’s been almost 50 years since interracial marriage has been legalized.  Churches are still free to refuse to marry interracial couples.  What makes you think same sex marriage would be any different?

      “I can disagree withsomething, and not hate someone” – True, but you can’t vote against someone’s rights and respect them.

      • Anonymous

        Then you are saying I have to change my belief, I happen to disagree with that. I have heard Presidents, and not only Obama that they have to separate themselves from their belief’s. Then they do not believe in them. I will contemplate your opinion if I “vote against” then I do not respect them. I will say that I do not hate someone for that difference. 

        • Anonymous

          You might not “hate” them, but you think that they are second class citizens.  You think that you are better than them.  You look down on them and complain when they have the audacity to attempt to gain equal treatment under the law.  I’m not saying that you need to change your beliefs.  I’m saying you need to recognize that same sex couples have rights, despite what your religion might say.  If you want marriage to be only between a man and a woman in your church, fine.  But if you want the government to stay out of your church, you better keep your church out of the government.

          • Anonymous

            If you don’t ***feel*** respected  (by people you  think consider themselves “better” than you)  you’d better question your own self-pride. If true, blaming others is pointless. There’s only one way to fix that.

            Equal benefits…..for legally equal social relationships of commitment,  subdefined either as One-Man, One-Woman Marriages or Same Sex-Unions (or whatever legal designation is chosen).   

          • Anonymous

            “Equal benefits…..for legally equal social relationships of commitment, subdefined either as One-Man, One-Woman Marriages or Same Sex-Unions (or whatever legal designation is chosen).   ” – Seperate by equal?  No thanks, the Supreme Court ruled that unconstitutional long ago.  Besides, the only reason your side is offering civil unions as a “compromise” is because your side is losing.  If you wanted to give same sex couples civil unions, you should have done that 10 or 15 years ago.

          • Anonymous

            I was not part of the discussion at that time and own only my own words.

          • Anonymous

            Well, good to know you are owning “separate but equal”…

          • Anonymous

            Please cut and paste from my postings “separate but equal” to prove your charge.

            Attributing both types of relationships to one legal umbrella does not conform the the usually understood charge of “separate but equal”. Please think before you judge.

          • Anonymous

            “Equal benefits…..for legally equal social relationships of commitment, subdefined either as One-Man, One-Woman Marriages or Same Sex-Unions ” – Separate institutions for the same thing, by definition of separate but equal.

          • Anonymous

            It’s obvious that your limited level of understanding cannot clarify the distinction between what I posted and what you think I meant.

          • Anonymous

            So then I take it you will be voting yes on 1?

          • Anonymous

            I did not say I was perfect, so I do not think I am better than them. You can not separate yourself from your beliefs. The Church is already in the Government, in the Constitution itself.

          • Anonymous

            ” I do not think I am better than them” – Yes, you do.  You think that you are more deserving of equal rights.

            “The Church is already in the Government, in the Constitution itself.” – No, it’s not.  Show me in the Constitution where there is any mention of god.

          • Anonymous

            Then you suggest I abandon my belief’s which is a Constitutional right of the free excersise of Religion.

          • Anonymous

            Where did you get that from?  How am I preventing you from worshiping the diety of your choice?  Unless I make your worship illegal/almost impossible to do, then none of your rights are being violated.  You are just being told that you have to follow the law, just like everyone else.   The only people that have anything at stake with Question 1 are same sex couples.  That’s it.  You aren’t the victim of anything, despite what your persecution complex tells you.

          • Anonymous

            Of course I have to follow the law, as if any are inacted or in force. Because I happend not to beleive in SSm does not believe I have a persectution complex, simply becaue I believe marriage is betweeen one man and one women. I do not think we we agree on this, though I would hope that you would think that I am not persecutating, or hateful because of the issue. Though in our conversations we have had, that is difficult for you to see. Even after the vote I will still believe the same way.

          • Anonymous

            If you believe that in your church, marriage is only between a man and a woman, fine.

            If you try to prevent me from having my legal right to civil marriage, then you are a bigot.  You would be denying me my rights because of your personal opinion.  That is where I draw the line.

          • Anonymous

            I do not believe I have hatred and intolerance, though I disagree on this issue. It can not be “fine” if I believe in marriage between a man and a women, and vote contrary to that belief. If that is how you feel, nothing I can say that will change your mind that I do not hate.

          • Anonymous

            What you don’t seem to get is that this issue goes beyond “disagreement”.  You are telling millions of LGBT Americans that they do not deserve their rights.  You don’t deny millions of Americans their rights and then pretend that you don’t hate them.

        • Anonymous

          No keep your beliefs.  That’s your right to believe what you want.  What you will probably find is that society marches forward regardless of whether people want to believe it is still wrong for different races to marry, for example, and you and your beliefs will be marginalized.  I do not know of anyone who is seeking to make you marry a member of your own sex, however, or to force you to believe that it’s ok for SSM to exist.
          Government, on the other hand, MUST be belief-neutral and extend to all people similarly situated the same blessings, and the same obligations, that come with citizenship.  That is why SSM must become law of the land.
          But you can believe what you want.  Some beliefs will make your world very small and very lonely though.

          • Anonymous

            Very well said.

          • Anonymous

            In that same context you are saying, you should be able to have more than one spouse.

          • Anonymous

            I think you are right about that, except we tend to view evolution as linear.  The argument over more than one wife (as I don’t know of societies where the wives had more than one husband) appears to have been redefined, and the hammer came down on the side of having one only, at least at one time.
            If you view marriage realistically as a contract of goods between partners (which is in fact the ONLY TRUE historical context that exists for marriage, what do you think a dowry is?) then it makes sense that we limit a lifetime commitment to care for a partner to one at a time.  Even the renegade mormons who continue to practice polygamy rely on social services to provide for their children by multiple wives.

          • Anonymous

            BTW, I get the sense that you are at least thinking critically about the issue, and I applaud you on that.  Remember, a vote yes (or at least not voting against Q 1) does not mean you have to change your beliefs.  You can hold onto them.  You can pick your church whether it approves or disapproves of performing SSMs.  You can teach your children whatever you want (what they will believe is entirely another thing!).  I would ask that you at least abstain from voting against this and let the same sex couples that I know, who have been together for decades, have the same benefits that you and I as heterosexuals enjoy simply by getting a marriage license.  That would be an indication of great growth as a citizen.

        • notateapartier

          I agree with you. You do not hate these individuals who you do not know.  Neither do you respect them as people, though.  You should get to know some gay people.  You will find them to be just as interesting/boring, loving/standoffish, funny/shy, hardworking/lazy, cooperative/obstinate etc. as anyone else. 

          • Anonymous

            Please do not take this the wrong way, but you are ceratinly right. Although hetrosexual I can find the same ways. Tempermental, and extremely cruel. (that can be in both cases). Though you suggest my belief’s should change, than I would respect them. If that was true I could not respect my belief’s.

        • ChuckGG

          You don’t have to vote NO.  If you don’t believe in SSM but also do not believe in voting against a person’s civil rights, then simply leave that question blank.  That in itself is a pretty strong statement.

    • Anonymous

      Your interpretation is so far off. We’ve never parsed these things out. Never. We’ve never said, yes, freedom of religion, except for you and you. Civil rights for all, except you and you. 

      Your clergy can’t be forced to hold any kind of ceremony. We give marriage licenses to people who are of two different faiths and we give them to people who have previously been divorced. However, notice how we don’t have the state step in and force churches to have ceremonies for these couples? Why would it be different for gay people? 

      • Anonymous

        Actually wolf, in the history of this country there have been laws against religion.  There have been state laws and then federal laws.  All you have to do is look up Mormon history and you will see how govts. have tried to stifle the freedom of religion.

        • Anonymous

          Actually tofu, that’s only when there is a government interest. It’s not appropriate to do so out of mere disapproval or disdain. 

          • Anonymous

            So what was the government interest in chasing a religious group out of the homes and land, putting a shoot on site order, or even the federal government not protecting it’s citizens.  Also, why the laws to stop polygamy in the Mormon church?  All b/c of govt. interest?  This is another sad chapter in US history, much like the taking of Native American lands and putting them in reservations and then making them dependent on the US Govt, or the internment of US citizens and territory citizens during WWII.

        • ChuckGG

          True.  I don’t support many of the actions of our country when it was quite young.  I would point out, though, that the government has not forced any church to perform any ceremony.  It has tried to stop churches from doing things but forcing them to perform a ceremony?  Never happened.

          • Anonymous

            Never happened, but doesn’t mean never will, the law of averages state that someone/group will try at some point, just to make a point if anything else.

          • ChuckGG

            It would be a huge stretch.  And, to what end?  The government has no connection to the sectarian world.  It would be like the US government telling the British Parliament to enact a certain law.  Our government, according to our First Amendment, has no jurisdiction over religion.  So, while someone might try to bring a suit against a church, the courts would throw it out as the court has no standing in this matter.  It’s apples and oranges.

            Now, I also would ask, why would anyone bother?  A church wedding without a marriage license has no legal weight whatsoever.  It is merely an institutional ceremony.  If a couple has an issue with a church not performing a wedding ceremony, then that issue is between the couple and the church.  The State has nothing to do with it, either in criminal or civil proceedings.  It would be like asking an NFL Referee to oversee a British cricket match – it does not happen.

            Truly, I think churches, and frankly, many church goers think their church carries far more legal weight than it actually does.  But, because of the First Amendment, I would say the Kiwanis Club and the Elks Club carry more legal weight than a religious organization.  At least, those clubs are somewhat susceptible to the liquor and sales tax laws. 

            So, let them make a point, but that’s as far as it would ever go.  I just don’t see anyone doing this.  Civil marriage is the matter on the table.  There are plenty of churches out there who will perform a SS marriage that includes signing-off on the state-issued marriage certificate.  If you are that religious that you want to take on such an institution, I’d suggest you change churches and let the dinosaurs of theology go the way of the Sumerian faith (any of those left?).  It would be a lot less frustrating.

          • Anonymous

            It’s the old adage, b/c they can try. They would feel that their rights are being violated. For over 50 years, the Pledge of Allegiance was said in schools until someone felt the need to oppose it b/c it was infringing on their rights. For over 200 years prayers were said in schools, for athletic events etc., until someone felt it was against their constitutional rights. What makes not suing a church any different? How easy would it be for any progressive thinking judge to overturn the law b/c it is considered unconstitutional? For every person that would support the churches, there are other groups out there to destroy b/c it’s human nature to take things to the limits, to see how far things go. MacDonald’s was sued for millions b/c of a cup of hot coffee, b/c it was slightly hotter than other brands. Yes, they appealled and won, but how many hundreds of thousands of $$$ were wasted for something common sense?

            You may not see anyone doing this, but in this litigous society, someone will try.

          • ChuckGG

            And, the net result will be….?  Nothing.  The First Amendment is so ingrained in our Constitution that I would find the possibility of it being found unconstitutional to be highly unlikely.  If this were to happen, you would have far more to worry about than two men getting a piece of paper from the government telling them they could file jointly on their income taxes.

            The issues with schools make sense to me.  The issues of the Pledge of Allegiane and prayer in school make perfect sense to me.  Imagine for a moment that you were a Christian child attending a public school that was primary attended by Jewish students.  Since the majority of this public school is Jewish along with the teachers and administrators, it “makes sense” to have Jewish prayers over the PA system each morning.  Is that fair to the Christian child?  I think not.  Therefore, prayers should be left out of public schools and in the home and the church/synagogue/mosque where they belong.  We got by this when I was a kid by having a “moment of silent meditation” when you could pray or write up a grocery list – up to you.  I guess they are not doing that now, for whatever reason. 

            The Pledge is another issue.  That goes to some religions who do not believe in pledging to a country but only to God.

            So, in a nutshell, the two items you complained about, in fact, are there to support religious freedom and fairness, especially in a public setting where ALL people are to be served because ALL people paid their taxes to build/run the place.  This is exactly why the First Amendment exist – our government should remain neutral on religion so as to allow all religions to co-exist freely in our society.  Of course, I have heard from more than one “Christian” who told me this was all a lot of bunk because it is “obvious” that Christianity is the only “true” religion, even though Christianity itself is not a religion.  A religion is Catholic, Baptist, Jewish, etc.

            I personally would like to see the “under God” phrase removed from the Pledge as that was added in the 1950’s in response to the “Red Threat” of Communism which, of course, is a “godless government.”  But, I have to agree with SCOTUS, the phrase “under God” and “In God We Trust” on the money has become a generic phrase and does not endorse a particular religion.  Fine.  I’m not losing any sleep over it.

            So, I would say just relax.  SSM is not some evil demon.  It’s a “no big deal” and the arguments you put forward are so unlikely it is not worth stopping SSM.

    • Anonymous

      This isn’t about anyone being forced to marry anyone or get married at all.  It is about every adult being allowed to marry the person he or she chooses to. 

      In regards to clergy being allowed to marry, that is something that the freedom of religion guaranteed by our Constitution allows each religion or sect to determine for themselves based on their belief system.  However, any clergy member of any religion has a legal right to marry.  Our marriage laws do not prevent clergy members from marrying nor would they require a clergy member to marry.  So your “next stop” is nothing more than ridiculous hyperbole!!!

    • notateapartier

      Churches and clergy members have always had the right to refuse to marry someone, for whatever reason.  My mother and father were not able to be married in the Catholic church because my mother had been divorced before.

    • Anonymous

      Nope wrong.  Stop believeing what happened in other states.  Maine’s law is worded so that cannot happen.

    • Anonymous

      The question on the ballot is to allow gays and lesbians access to civil marriage. You are free to keep your religious views of marriage, but it would be great if you could find it in your heart to allow fellow Mainers to be treated equally by our government under our laws.

  • Thank you so much for your thoughts. God Bless you. 

  • Anonymous

    I am voting “Yes” on Question #1.

    Heterosexual, Married, & Proud!

    • What are you proud of? Promoting sin?

      • Millicent

        are you proud of judging people? Are you proud of trying to foist your religion on to people who are not of the same religion, or not religious at all? 

        • Anonymous

          He would probably answer yes…

          • Millicent

            perhaps he’s not proud at all – if I remember correctly pride is a sin ;)

          • Anonymous

            So is gluttony, and yet so many people went to support Chick Fil A…

          • Anonymous

            One of the 7 deadly sins as I recall …

        • Anonymous

          I don’t believe the marriage bill has anything about religion in it.

          • Anonymous

            The only thing this marriage bill has in it regarding religion is a special statement that churches would not be forced to marry same sex couples.

        • He is. Bill at least admits to his bigotry, so props to him for that.

        • Don’t use a religious term to describe and define your homosexual acts!

          • Anonymous

            Sweet cheeks, Millicent can say whatever he or she wants to say, as long as it meets the guidelines for posting, there is nothing you can do about it.

          • ptkitty

            Bill Peters can say whatever he or she wants to say, as long as it meets the guidelines for posting, there is nothing you can do about it.    FTFY.    108 and 223 for you…certainly a person of your great intellect can figure this out.

      • Anonymous

        Proud of supporting freedom and the Constitution, duh.

      • Anonymous

        sin is judging someone else, sin is all the lies coming from the no on 1 side

      • Anonymous

        Oh please, keep YOUR religion to yourself. Believe it or not, it does NOT apply to everyone. 

        • It applies to the definition of marriage……the definition that you are trying to include a sinful act in!

        • You’re right! Religion does not apply to those who refuse to hear! But marriage is a religious union between one man and one woman! Get your own definition to describe your sinful union! Leave the holy union of marriage alone!

          • Anonymous

            No.

      • Anonymous

        catholic church.does..boy scouts..oh  but thats different because molestation of children in the church and private organizations are frowned upon..but not much done about it..and a gay union..isnt about that (sex)….gays are never going away..so I think people should concentrate on the real problems in our crazy world..thats my opinion and Im sticking to it..stop the hate

    • Anonymous

      I’m also voting “YES” on Question #1.
      Heterosexual, Engaged and very proud to support all of my gay friends!
      And to Bill Peters: it is NOT promoting sin at all. Can you argue against it without using any religious rhetoric? Doubt it.

    • ptkitty

      I am voting “NO” on #1.

      Heterosexual, Married, and Proud to support marriage between one man and one woman! 

      • Anonymous

        Heterosexual, Married, and proud to support unequal treatment for my fellow Americans!
        FTFY

        • ptkitty

          FTFY?  Real classy.  108 and 223 to you.

          • Anonymous

            First of all, FTFY means “Fixed that for you”  What did you think it meant?
            Second of all “108 and 223 to you.”, what?

          • ptkitty

            OK…if you say so.   FTFY.

          • Anonymous

            Seriously, what do you think it means?  It’s a common acronym.  I’m also still curious about “108 and 223 to you”.  What does that even mean?  Are you on something?

            P.S. If you are going to use “FTFY”, at least make an attempt to use it correctly.

      • notateapartier

        Interesting, what some people are proud of.

      • Anonymous

        And you think that we yes on 1 voters are not also in favor of supporting hetero marriages?  Guess again.

      • Anonymous

         Hetero, Male,  Proud, Married to an angel of a woman, and I want marriage to be like in the Old Testament. One man and as many women as he wants. Read Kings, I and II. Or is the Bible wrong here?

  • Anonymous

    Well, good thing your bible is completely unrelated to the law.

    • Anonymous

      Actually many of the laws that we have today are based on religious beliefs in the Bible.  Our Legal system is based off of the English Common Law system, which is based off of the Bible.  So in a sense the Bible is related to the law.

      • Anonymous

        So close.  You are right about being based on English Common law, but English Common law is NOT based on the bible.  English Common Law was specifically separated from religion.  There was separate Canon law, which was governed by the church and dealt with religious matters, and then there was common law, specifically separated from the church, that was governed by the king.  This common law was based on the Code of Hammurabi.

      • Anonymous

        That’s not true. 

    • Anonymous

       Or reality.

  • Anonymous

    While I don’t care who sleeps with whom (excluding child predators), I would vote no on #1.  At some point, a same sex couple would see this cute New England church and want to get married in it.  The church MIGHT say no and the couple would say their civil rights were being trampled on and sue.  That is the only reason I would vote no.  Isn’t there some compromise that would allow equal rights under the civil, not religious, law that would allow churches to say no to marrying same sex couples.  Don’t quote the separation of church and state cause everyone sues. 

    • Anonymous

      There is a special provision in the law that states churches can not be forced to marry same sex couples.  If anyone tried to sue, it would be immediately thrown out.  There are churches today that still refuse to marry interracial couples.  Same sex marriage wouldn’t be any different.

      • Anonymous

        It is amazing how many people think this stuff about the churches.  It goes to prove they believe what their church(/or those stupid ads on tv say) is saying and act  in blind obedience without really learing the other side to make an informed choice. 

    • Anonymous

      wrong – there are religious exemption that allow churches to deny marrying same sex couples- thats just another lie you heard from the no on 1 side

    • Anonymous

      No, you can’t sue a church for that. 

      You can sue a business if they do discriminate though. We already voted on that in 2005. So voting Yes wouldn’t change a thing. 

    • Anonymous

      Churches can already refused to marry who ever they want. 

    • Anonymous

      See, that is a misconception.  Churches have been denying couples for centuries.  Believe me, I’m heterosexual and I was denied by my own church.  Go figure.  Besides, who in their right mind would wish to be married by someone who is intolerant or somewhere they aren’t wanted.

      • Anonymous

        Oh yeah, forgot to mention I’ve been happily married for 33 years so in retrospect what did they know?

    • Anonymous

      Have you read the wording of the law? 

    • notateapartier

      You are exactly right.  Aside from the already known “Religious Freedom” amendment, there should be specific protection of this religious freedom in the same-sex marriage act.
      Everyone should know that if same sex marriage passes, their church is not going to be forced, or even expected to perform these ceremonies.  So your compromise that will allow equal rights under the civil, not religious, law that would allow churches to say no to marrying same sex couples is already written into the act. 

      “3.  Affirmation of religious freedom.   This Part does not authorize any court or other state or local governmental body, entity, agency or commission to compel, prevent or interfere in any way with any religious institution’s religious doctrine, policy, teaching or solemnization of marriage within that particular religious faith’s tradition as guaranteed by the Maine Constitution, Article 1, Section 3 or the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. A person authorized to join persons in marriage and who fails or refuses to join persons in marriage is not subject to any fine or other penalty for such failure or refusal.”
      http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/bills_124th/billtexts/sp038401.asp

    • Anonymous

      Churches already refuse marriage to people for any reason they want, even when our government allows civil marriage for them. Catholic churches refuse to marry excommunicated Catholics, Muslim mosques refuse to marry non-muslims… there was even a church THIS YEAR who refused to marry a black couple!

      Our First Amendment protects them then, and it protects them now. It will continue to protect them even when civil marriage is offered to same-sex couples, as it has in every state of this nation where civil marriage for same-sex couples is allowed.

      I have voted YES on question 1, and I hope the majority of Mainers join me so that ALL Maine families can protect the lives they build together with civil marriage.

      • Peter Dawson

        Just to add a few more examples: Orthodox Jews will not marry couples unless both members are Jewish.  Catholic Churches will not marry a couple if either member has been divorced (the church will make them go through a lengthy annulment process, first).  Up until Vatican II Catholic Churches wouldn’t marry a couple if one was a non-Catholic.  They have always been protected in these decisions, and have not been challenged.

    • SierraTango

      RTFQ.

    • Anonymous

      The minister of that church can already say “I don’t perform weddings for any except church members” or “I won’t’ marry you because I think you are unsuited for each other” or even, “I won’t marry you because I don’t like your nose.” A minister doesn’t have to marry anybody. They have total and complete discretion.

  • Anonymous

     The First Book of Samuel
    18:3 Then Jonathan and David made a
    covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.

  • Anonymous

     “The fact that you can’t sell your daughter for three goats and a cow means we’ve already redefined marriage.”

    http://youtu.be/P0buh-1quVs

  • aand where in the constitution do you find marriage?…..cause is not there! marriage was a religious right prior to big brother got into the business .now..liberals always cry “stay out of my bedroom”…well stop asking us in through the government .

    • Anonymous

      equal protection clause, BOOM ROASTED!

      • I asked where in the constitution you find it..come on i am looking at mine..

        • Anonymous

          The Equal Protection clause is in the Constitution, you must not be looking very hard…

          • Anonymous

            it’s an amendment to the Constitution that was never properly ratified, and would never be under any other circumstance…

          • Anonymous

            Tell you what, you go start working on undoing the 14th Amendment.  Then, when you have, maybe you’ll have an argument.

        • Anonymous

          All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. BOOM ROASTED!

          • Anonymous

            Ummmmm, the 14th amendment was never actually ratified

            look it up…how can states that were NOT part of the United States at the time (i.e., they had renounced ties via the confederacy and the civil war) ratify an amendment under the ‘Reconstruction’ terms that dictated they must ratify the document to RE-ENTER the Union?

            If it was a condidtion of re-entry into the union, they were not part of the union when they ratified, therefore, the 14th was never ratified by 3/4 of the states, as required under Article 5 of the Constitution.

            Of course, because the definition of a person residing within their respective state was changed to a Citizen residing within the United States provides the central government with greater power, mostly for control freaks such as yourself to wield authority over others, the sociopathic politiciuans in this country have yet to take umbrage, and probably never will.

            Stop acting like you are ‘roasting’ people (more controllist sadism there, I imagine) and get yourself some history books to get educated.

          • Anonymous

            So now you want to eliminate civil marriage benefits altogether for everyone, AND revoke the 14th Amendment over a century after it was ratified? 

            Good luck with that.

          • Anonymous

            Nope, pretty sure the USA supreme court disagrees with you. As they have used it to make decisions about the Constitution, BOOM ROASTED! BTW I just read about it, yup Still part of the Constitution. 

          • marriage is not a law..boom!read the federalist papers.

          • Anonymous

            Federalist papers aren’t laws, so, I’m revoking your “boom”.

    • Anonymous

      Well, now government is involved, so there has to be equal protection under the law. That’s in the Constitution — twice in fact. 

      • Anonymous

        throw out the inheritance tax and the income tax, both unconstitutional as they are not direct taxes equally apportioned amongst the several states, and you have equal protection for homosexual couples…

  • Anonymous

    ” These people who are making a big deal out of gay marriage? I don’t give
    a f*ck about who wants to get married to anybody else! Why not?! We’re
    making a big deal out of things we shouldn’t be making a deal out of.
    They go on and on with all this bullsh*t about “sanctity” — don’t give
    me that sanctity crap! Just give everybody the chance to have the life
    they want.”
    – Clint Eastwood

    • Let me guess, this wasn’t at the RNC? :D

      • Anonymous

        Which makes Eastwood a hypocrite doesn’t it!

        • Just a useful tool. Though legacy might not be important to him, instead of being remembered for his acting and directing, he risks making his name going down in history as the “kooky empty chair guy” who helpedRomney, a guy who thinks gays getting married is a big deal, get elected. He should have gone to the Libertarian party and stumped for Gary Johnson if he was principled about such things. Alas.

  • Anonymous

    if your marriage is so pathetic that someone else getting married will impact it so, perhaps you had best start trying to save you marriage rather than worrying about someone elses’s
    I’m a happily married 60 year old hetero grandfather and SSM will not bother my marriage at all— my wife and I are pleased and proud to vote for SSM and equal rights

    • Anonymous

      This.

    • Anonymous

      Equal rights to plunder other people’s pocket books?

      yeah, that’s a noble cause…

      • Anonymous

        Yeah, all those straight people getting all of those benefits.  I’m sure you are working to remove those benefits from heterosexuals, right?  Otherwise you would just be another hypocrite grasping at a reason to justify their own bigotry… 

  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous

    Homosexuality is wrong. We will see how the vote turns out. 

    • Anonymous

      equal rights are right

      • Anonymous

        equal rights to plunder others via the tax code is not right, nor is it a natural right, as it is unjust………….it’s simply unabridged tyranny

        • Anonymous

          So you are against all civil marriage?

        • Anonymous

          Civil rights take precedence over majority rule. That is
          what an inalienable right means and it is a fundamental principle of American
          government. In the American brand of democracy the American government
          guarantees and protects the civil rights of the minorities as defined by the
          Bill of Rights, even if a majority are not willing to do so. That is what makes
          America a free country, and distinguishes it from other simple democracies.
          This is what we must understand about freedom in order to preserve it. A lynch
          mob is majority rule. Majority rule is not “the American way” when
          civil rights are at stake.

           

    • Anonymous

      says you.  What makes certain people think they have the right to define everyone’s life.  Your way is right and that’s it?  Hmmm, don’t think so

      • Anonymous

        I believe it happens all the time.  That’s why we have laws, tax laws, etc.  If we didn’t have these laws there would be chaos.

      • Anonymous

         It’s almost always old white conservatives who won’t leave decent people alone.They can’t die off fast enough.Then humanity can start to make real progress unencumbered by religion.

    • Anonymous

      Ugh

    • Anonymous

      No, it’s not “wrong”.  It just is. Like heterosexuality, it’s part of who we are as humans.  If more people would comprehend that fact, society would be so much better for it.

  • wasmenowfla

    Ill be voting no but would like to see ‘Can I marry my dog” on the ballot in 2014.

    • Anonymous

      kinda wonder about those that bring up animals and their dogs– are you trying to “out” yourself?

    • Anonymous

      I’m sorry wasmenowfla, but “woof” means no.

    • Anonymous

      Your ignorance is showing

    • Anonymous

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

      Seriously, point to one place on this planet where allowing civil marriage for same-sex couples has led to marriage to pets.

    • notateapartier

      You can try to get enough signatures, but my feeling is no, it’s too hard for dogs to hold the pen in their paws in order to sign the marriage license.  Don’t get me started on how difficult it is for ponies to hold a pen with their hoof.

    • Anonymous

      Whatever floats your boat. 

      Come on now. Over the top.

  • Anonymous

    except when its for the second time…..

  • Anonymous

    The constitution?? Heck the Liberals have been trying to distroy it for years and now they bring it up when its fitting to their cause? Funny bunch.

    • Anonymous

      Yeah, stupid liberals what with their “14th Amendment”, “freedom”, and “equal treatment under the law”… (sarcasm)

      • Anonymous

        2nd amendment which liberals have bastardized for years is in the constitution, yet you want rid of it.  Can’t have it both ways.

        • Anonymous

          There you go, just making wild assumptions.  I have no problem with the Second Amendment and I’m pretty liberal.

          • Anonymous

            We battle because we are mean’t too, by the powers that be. a divided country is easier to control because half of the people will believe their side is right on any issue.. We can’t compromise because we have a courpt system. to many hands in the cookie jar wanting to add their bit to it.. Gay marrirage can’t stand on its own, it will have to have 100’s of by-laws added to it over the comming years. The political system is courpt…  and until people come together and fix it,  I’ll asume you are Anti-Hetrosexual

          • Anonymous

            What?  Did you just have some verbal diarrhea all over your key board?  I’ll try to respond to the tiny bits and pieces that actually made sense.

            “Gay marrirage can’t stand on its own, it will have to have 100’s of by-laws added to it over the comming years” – So now your excuse for denying equal rights is laziness?  What laws would need to be changed?

            “I’ll asume you are Anti-Hetrosexual” – So, because I won’t let homophobes like you trample my rights, I’m “anti-heterosexual”?  I’m not “anti-heterosexual” just anti-bigot.

          • Anonymous

            Don’t let him “pushyourbuttons”, obviously not worth the effort. :)

          • Anonymous
          • The beauty of this question is that we needn’t wait for corrupt politicians and parties to “come together and fix it”. We can do it ourselves. :D

        • Anonymous

          untrue –

        • Anonymous

          I support ALL of our Constitution, that includes the 2nd Amendment AND the 14th, as well as the 5th, 1st, etc etc.

        • notateapartier

          Don’t use such a broad brush.  Many liberals (including myself) own guns. 

    • Anonymous

      untrue laddie – destroy the constitution? tell where it says “we the corporations” in the constitution— and thats from YOUR conservative court

      • Anonymous

        I know we are under corporte law and have corporate courts, talked about it for years, People just don’t want to hear it. They prefer to want to live in lala land.. Please don’t disturb their comfort level at any cost, even at the distruction of the country.. P.S. I am a Democrat. A tea party Democrat and am certain of the collaspe of the country any day, week, or month.

    • Anonymous

      how so? Seems like they have been defending it more and more.

    • Anonymous

      I am a conservative, registered Republican and I see this as absolutely a conservative issue. We should be upholding our Constitution’s demand for equal treatment under our laws, and that includes the 1,100+ benefits and privileges our government extends to us based on our marital status.

      Civil marriage is a legal, government matter, and there is no justification for discriminating against gays and lesbians.

      I have voted YES on question 1, and I hope the majority of Mainers will join me this year and allow ALL Maine families the opportunity to protect the lives they build together with civil marriage.

  • jdtex

    Let the cute little ‘couples’ have their little piece of paper legalizing their union.  We know they are not truly married as far as Biblical standards, but at least they can feel a little better about their poor decisions in life. We should feel compassion toward those who have been led astray.

    • Anonymous

      and its obvious you have made poor decisions in life–

    • Anonymous

      While I find your opinion insulting overall (is that really necessary if you are trying to express love?), I applaud your ability to separate civil law and religious law. I will fight to the death to defend your religious freedom rights.

    • Anonymous

      If you had one iota of decency you would be compassionate towards your fellow man regardless what their sexual orientation may be.

    • Anonymous

      Thank you for your support! I honestly am fine with you having whatever opinion you want of my life with my soul mate.

      It is how we are treated by our government that is at issue, which is why we are asking for access to civil marriage and the 1,100+ benefits and privileges it provides under the law.

    • Anonymous

       You and your church and its marriage ceremonies can remain heterosexual-only if you so choose. If that makes you feel better, great. I don’t care, as long as you support the civil right of same-sex couples to marry, which has nothing to do with how your church may choose to define “marriage” or who is eligible to be married by your church.

  • Anonymous

    “What is currently missing is the public recognition of the private love, of which the most accurate representation is marriage. ”
    ******************************************

    “Private love?”  Really?……..Really?

    Those who have  been trying to preserve their traditional marital privacy the past several decades throughout the cultural upheaval of rainbow flags, parades, social aggression, school indoctrination and  simultaneous commercial television ads for intimate male and female products are now being asked to recognize drop-of-the robe-behind-the-screen “privacy”?

    How about permitting parents the “privacy”  to educate their children about their own family morals relative to their children’s emerging sexuality by removing the agenda from public education?

    By their own self-definition same-sex supporters removed themselves from the traditional definition of marriage. Equal benefits legally secured, their relationships need to be  named whatever they want them to be except “marriage”. This will guarrantee all the same opportunity to earn (or not to earn) the “recognition” of their relationships. 

     Traditional families have long felt the invasion of their family privacy…but that’s apparently OK by the BDN.

    Mainers, if you want Marriage to remain defined as the union of one man and one woman please vote “NO” on Question 1.   

    • Anonymous

      Mainers, if you want to continue the discrimination against same sex couples please vote “NO” on Question 1.
      FTFY

    • Anonymous

      I voted YES on question 1, because I believe in BOTH traditional marriage AND same-sex marriage!

      Why do you insist on making this one or the other? No one voting YES is seeking to deny marriage to heterosexual couples.

      • Anonymous

        Marriage has an existing definition and most people know what it is. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Mainers will decide this one way or the other.

        Never have I voiced an opinion that would deny you the benefits that you lament. Relationship respect is earned and up to individuals within any given relationship. Call your relationship anything you want….. except marriage….. if you truly respect the traditional Mainers who live here too who have different life values than you do.  

        • Anonymous

          Or, I’ll call it marriage.  Marriage will work nicely.

        • Anonymous

          If you are voting no on this issue, you are denying us the benefits we lament.

          You can call my relationship whatever name you want, but civil marriage is the legal contract we seek access to. We did not choose that name, our government did!

          • Anonymous

            No,no. It is your responsibility to name your own path, whatever you choose. I have not called your relationship anything except a relationship.

  • Anonymous

    Anti-Hetrosexuals had opposite sex parents..

    • Anonymous

      Are you telling me that, in the last vote on this matter, 47% of Maine voters were “anti-heterosexual”?  Estimates put the LGBT population at 3-5%.  According to you, 42-44% of heterosexuals are “anti-heterosexual”.  Really?

      P.S. You can call me “anti-heterosexual” when I start trying to take away your rights.

    • Anonymous

      Why would a person be anti-heterosexual?  I don’t toss the word “stupid” around often, but it really does apply to your post.

      • Anonymous

        what do you call people who vote no this issue, “Anti Gay” when the truth I don’t know any “Anti-Gay people.

        • Anonymous

          When someone votes to deny same sex couples their legal rights, then the term “anti-gay” is more than appropriate.

        • Anonymous

          Want to give your post some more thought and get back to me? “Anti-gay” = “against homosexuality”. That pretty much describes every demonizing thing said by “vote no” crowd.

    • Anonymous

      No one voting YES on question 1 is “anti-heterosexual”… we are not seeking to deny marriage rights to any heterosexual couple!

  • Anonymous

    Then, following your logic, sex between men and women would need to be monitored so as to prevent any adventurous “sinful” encounters.

    You people are such hypocrites. 

    • They are! You wouldn’t want a fifteen year old dating a thirty five year old, for example, would you? Following your logic, you should be able to marry anything and everything and that should be accepted by all!

      • Anonymous

        Bill, think before posting. SSM supporters are not trying to open the “anything goes” floodgates. And we certainly are not advocating sex with minors. Or animals, as other “vote no on 1” posters suggest.

        This is about two consenting adults of the same gender who are, by nature, attracted to each other. We feel that the rules which apply to straight people should also apply to us with regard to marriage. And luckily, according to nationwide polls, more and more people are starting to understand and support us.

        To the point of my previous reply to you, nobody asks straight couples what they plan to do in the privacy of their bedroom. So then, why does the anti-SSM crowd get wound up about what they think is happening in the bedrooms of same-sex couples?

        It’s nobody’s business.

        The walls of discrmination will eventually crumble. Whether it’s done by popular vote or the courts, it will happen, I’m sure. My guess is, you’ll have been on the wrong side of history on this one.

        • By telling me to “think before posting” are you suggesting that I agree with you? Homosexual acts are sin! Homosexual acts are condemned in scripture as sin, as an abomination! Marriage is described in the bible as a holy union, ordained by God, between one man and one woman!

          Do you think that by calling the sin of homosexual acts “marriage” will change that?

          When a sinful act such as homosexual acts are defined under the same definition as a non sinful action, a conflict will always arise and you insult millions of Christians with your flippant attitude toward marriage!

          I suggest that you separate your sinful homosexual acts with some definition other than marriage!

          • Anonymous

            “I suggest that you separate your sinful homosexual acts with some definition other than marriage!” – No.

          • Anonymous

            Bill, I couldn’t possibly care less about your imaginary friend in the sky.  You’re shouting into the darkness with your biblical voodoo.

            I live in the real world and my concern is with how the law treats same-sex couples.  If your god wants to step up and voice his/her/its opinion, fine…I’ll listen.  But until then, I’m not going to be swayed by ancient stories written by men.  For that matter, I can’t understand why anyone in a modern world would.

  • Allowing same sex marriage is not necessarily supporting it. Why should others who don’t believe the same things as you be denied rights? It’s simply inhumane to deny these PEOPLE who pay taxes just like every other CITIZEN of this country just because they don’t share your beliefs. It’s disappointing that this is even an issue. 

  • Anonymous

    just to throw a few things into the mix that everyone voting should think about and read this to see the future if they vote to allow this. I’d hate to see churches and business losing the right to say no I wont marry you or a doctor to say no it goes against what I want to do,,,,! all these lawsuits are real and ongoing. http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-gay-marriage-be-legal-nationwide/nationally-legal-gay-marriage-puts-churches-at-risk    http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=25762

    • Anonymous

      business cannot discriminate – thats the law now–( be kinda  cute if a business said they wouldn’t perform a service for a bigot or a conservative– some of you would be going wild)
      churches are protected under the law- anyone that says they aren’t is just repeating no on 1 lies

    • Anonymous

      Businesses are subject to anti-discrimination laws, proven by the law suits they lost when they decided to discriminate.
      A doctor takes The Hippocratic Oath which is an oath historically taken by physicians and other healthcare professionals swearing to practice medicine ethically and honestly. Being discriminatory certainly doesn’t fall under being ethical now does it?
      The church on the other hand, will not be forced to marry same sex couples if they chose not to, so what exactly is the issue?

      • Anonymous

        So even though it’s the law, you don’t think someone will try to get married where they would not be welcomed???  I hardly believe that.  The Boy Scouts are an excellent example of a private organization, yet they are being sued constantly b/c of the standards that the private organization has set.  You don’t think that this will eventually seep into the churches? 

        • Anonymous

          “The Boy Scouts are an excellent example of a private organization, yet they are being sued constantly b/c of the standards that the private organization has set.” – They Boy Scouts have been sued once.  Anything after that has just been pressure to change.  No one has forced them to do anything.

          ” You don’t think that this will eventually seep into the churches?  ” – Seeing as churches are still free to refuse to marry interracial couples, no, no it will not seep into the churches.

          • Anonymous

            Unfortunately that once went all the way to the Supreme Court. So how many times is that in court, maybe 4 or 5 times. Yes it’s only 1 case, but having to be defended up to 5 different times. So now there’s pressure to change, and why should they have to cave? It’s a private organization. It must be something really special if people are suing to try to get in. I personally don’t see the value in Scouting that much that I would spend millions trying to get in. And if people are willing to spend that much for Scouts, why not spend the millions on trying to invade the churches? Many of these churches would not be able to afford the court or lawyer fees, so they would either give in or they would have to quit the ministry. Either way, those that would be suing get their way.

          • Anonymous

            “So now there’s pressure to change, and why should they have to cave?” – Have you not seen all of the stories about scouts being forced to lie about their sexual orientation or rist being kicked out?  Their policy is harmful to children, that’s why it should change.

            “I personally don’t see the value in Scouting that much that I would spend millions trying to get in” – No one is currently spending millions to get in.  The case was decided.  Boy Scouts cannot be legally forced to join the 21st century.

            “Many of these churches would not be able to afford the court or lawyer fees, so they would either give in or they would have to quit the ministry.  ” – They wouldn’t even need to hire a laywer.  The law is clear and a lawsuit would be dismissed.  Besides, there are plenty of groups who would gladly step in.

          • Anonymous

            Yes, I see the stories, they knowingly lie though. What is the harm that says, I am a private organization, these are my rules, if you don’t like it, don’t join. If there are so many then why don’t they make their own scouting organization? (I can’t believe I’m defending the scouts). For every lawsuit, for every campaign to put in the newspapers, for every heartstring story of some kid who would have gotten his Eagle, but decided to come out right before his board (like that wasn’t planned). You don’t think it costs money to put out petitions, hold rallies, gather donations to fight the scouts? And for what? To try and pressure an organization to conform. Heck the Boy Scouts don’t even say what God you have to worship, just worship a God (Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish). It doesn’t matter, accept the higher being concept, why fight it?
            The law is clear now, but all it takes is some judge to hear the lawsuit and deem the law unconstitutional. Prayer in school jumps out at me.

          • Anonymous

            “What is the harm that says, I am a private organization, these are my rules, if you don’t like it, don’t join.” – Because many of the gay scouts join before they realize that they are gay.  After they realize, they need to either lie about who they are or risk being kicked out.  All this policy does is hurt certain scouts.  It is their legal right to kick out gay and atheist scouts, but all the policy does is harm people.

            ” You don’t think it costs money to put out petitions, hold rallies, gather donations to fight the scouts? And for what? To try and pressure an organization to conform. ” – That is their constitutional right to free speech at work.

    • notateapartier

      The USNews article is a bunch of baloney written by president of the National Organization for Marriage, not exactly a reliable source.

      • Anonymous

         US News was already a conservative rag.They stopped publishing on paper a while back.
        No surprise they couldn’t last.

  • Anonymous

    All of you that are voting yes on 1 are very confused and lost people. You really have no idea as to what you are arguing for. It is very sad that our world is headed in this direction. 

    • seththayer

      I’d like to know more specifically to what you are referring.  You say we have no idea for what we are arguing…can you enlighten us then as to what you mean? 

      thanks

      • Anonymous

        He’s probably going to bring up something about how same sex marriage will lead to the downfall of civilization as we know it.  Juding by his other comments, he has no idea what he is talking about, so don’t expect any good answers to your questions.

  • Anonymous

    Simply, religion lost it’s definition of marriage and power over what constitutes a marriage when civil marriages without religion were performed.  Anyone against gay marriage would be better off meeting individuals who are gay and getting to know them as people and not the generic flamboyantly gay individual on some sort of TV show.

    You don’t need to ignore that there may be differences between gay marriage and traditional religious marriage, you just need to accept the legal rights and rules regarding how they are treated under the law.

    • Anonymous

      Churches may have lost that right, but that doesn’t mean that people have to agree with it, they have to abide by the law, but they don’t necessarily have to agree with the principle.

  • ptkitty

    This sounds like HATE SPEECH.

    1. Keep it civil and stay on topic
    2. No vulgarity, racial slurs, name-calling or personal attacks.

    • Anonymous

      kitty go sharpen your claws somewhere else. That wasn’t hate speech nor was it name calling.

    • Anonymous

      Its only hate if you dont agree with redifining marriage

    • Anonymous

      http://bangordailynews.com/2012/10/29/politics/former-christian-civic-league-head-homosexuality-intrinsically-harmful-and-evil/

      It is not hate speech to point out hate.  That’s what I’m doing, and here is my argument:

      The former head of the Christian Civic League called homosexuality “intrinsically harmful and evil.”  Keep in mind that being gay is legal and considered mentally healthy by the American Psychological Association and other professional mental health organizations, both secular and religious.

      Being gay is, in other words, no more wrong than having a certain gender or race.  Even the conservative US Military has changed its rules to reflect that.  And yet here is a right wing faction calling it “evil.”  Now, that is indeed scary and full of hate.  It reminds me of the extreme zealots who stand at the funerals of our fallen veterans and say that they died because this country has legalized homosexuality. 

      Calling something “evil” in Christianity is the harshest thing you can do.  To proclaim it “evil” is to  associate being gay with the devil.  So, yes, it is hate speech, what is coming from this gentleman from the CCL and anyone who follows him.

      • ptkitty

        “The stubborn ignorant hate from far right religious zealots …”  is hate speech.

        Gay marriage is wrong and always will be.   As crs5012723 says:   “FTFY”

        • Anonymous

          Oh my glob, stop misusing FTFY.  You are just making yourself look stupid, although it seems like you wouldn’t have to try hard to do that.

          Here is how it is SUPPOSED to be used, so take note.

          Gay marriage is a right and always will be.
          FTFY

          You take a sentence that the original poster used and modify it slightly.  Is that so hard for you to understand?  It seems like it…

          • ptkitty

            Gay marriage is wrong and always will be!  

            This statement of fact doesn’t need your fixing.   Not using FTFY incorrectly.

          • Anonymous

            Why?  Because you say it is?  Guess what?  I don’t care what you or any of your little bigot friends thing.  If this is the best your side has, we’re going to have same sex marriage in no time!  I really do have to thank your side for having such terrible arguments, it really is helping to speed up the process

          • Anonymous

             so anyone who has different views are now bigots? wow ,

          • Peter Dawson

            They are not bigots because that have a different view.  They feel that their perceived moral superiority, entitles them to treat a minority as second-class citizens and deny them rights that the majority enjoys.  That is bigotry, pure and simple and that is the reason that they are justifiably called bigots.

    • Anonymous

      Please go read mrwaldo and Jakes comments above for hate speeh.  Maybe it is just ignorance of anything different from their worlds, but it leans toward hate speech.

    • Anonymous

      Follow your own advice.You’ve been vicious many times here.SD has been classy all the way.

  • Anonymous

    Think about how the kids with same sex parents are going to turn out. 

    • Anonymous

      You think voting no is going to make gay people disappear or something? 

    • Anonymous

      Loving, trusting, and tolerant. How are the kids from heterosexual marriages turning out now? Growing up in a world of abuse, poverty, hate…

    • Anonymous

      YES!

      This is a HUGE reason why we should allow civil marriage for same-sex couples— for the children they raise together will benefit from the protections civil marriage provides them.

      I have voted YES on question 1, and I hope most Mainers join me!

    • Yawningattrolls

      Basic human rights? Marriage implies possession and ownership – a feudalistic form of slavery! Ban marriage, period – no more arguments and basic human rights for all.

    • notateapartier

      Think about how the kids with opposite sex parents turn out. 
      Same answer. Depends on the kids, the parents, health, financial security, education- a lot of factors.

    • Anonymous

       Do a search and fine out how they have turn out  .

    • Peter Dawson

      Here’s one example… https://secure.mainersunited.org/page/share/brian

  • Anonymous

    Research says…..just fine.

    • Anonymous

       Research also says it is alot BETTER to have opposite sex parents. But who cares what is BETTER for our children of the future.

      • Anonymous

        No, research says that children of same sex parents do just as well as children of opposite sex parents.  But who cares about “facts” and “reality”?

        • Anonymous

           I know what I have seen for research. You need to show proof of what you are lying about.

          • Anonymous

            research from right wing lying sites don’t count

          • Anonymous

            Here are a list of groups that all support same sex couples raising children.
            1. American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
            2. American Academy of Family Physicians
            3. American Academy of Pediatrics
            4. American Bar Association
            5. American Psychiatric Association
            6. American Psychoanalytic Association
            7. American Psychological Association
            8. American Medical Association
            9. Child Welfare League of America
            10. National Association of Social Workers
            11. North American Council on Adoptable ChildrenSource: http://community.pflag.org/Document.Doc?id=349

            This link contains multiple studies that show children do just as well when raised by same sex parents:
            http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting.aspx

            This is another study that showed no difference:
            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00823.x/abstract;jsessionid=AA51D0BD79BBE8E86112C44B5A741F71.d01t04?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

            And another:
            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1992.tb01679.x/abstract

            And yet another:
            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9450.00302/abstract

            I think you get the point.  Now, I’ve shown my evidence, now it’s your turn to show your unbiased, peer reviewed research.

          • Anonymous

            OMG…you are right…If all the above organizations completely run by progressive social engineers say its ok…it must be…..O…..KKKKK……

          • Anonymous

            Yes, why should we take the opinions of psychologists who have studied the issue throughout their entire career seriously?  Instead, we should listen to the rantings of someone on the internet. (sarcasm)

          • Anonymous

            Does 2000 years of a successful society which operated on the father/mother system count….I know I cant site a source….but the history books are filled with examples….can you site a society which condoned sexual deviancy as a human right and survived to be a success?….of course, only unbiased. peer reviewed research is accepted…

          • Anonymous

            “of course, only unbiased. peer reviewed research is accepted…” – Psh, who needs research methods when I get gut feelings!

            ‘I know I cant site a source” – Well then, end of discussion.  Unless you can support your opinion with facts, your opinion is worthless.

          • There is no successful society that has not undergone massive changes in 2 millennia. You are looking at it the wrong way – think evolution, not devolution.

            Empires have come and gone, power has waxed and waned – societal norms have changed with the times across most of the world. There are some backward realms that resemble what life looked like in Christ’s time, though it’s nothing we want to emulate. 

          • Anonymous

            You nailed it.  just go look at some of the studies and see how the data and subjects were cherry picked to support the desired result. 

            I do not know anyone with a homosexual parent who does not have major “issues”.    A more accurate term for “issues” won’t get past the censors. 

            I am not saying that plenty of people raised by heterosexual parents so not also have “issues”, just that the severity and number are greater with homosexual parents.  

          • Anonymous

            Right, because “science” is all one big conspiracy theory…

          • Anonymous

            i don’t know anyone with bigots for parents that does not have major”issues”

          • Anonymous

            How can you even suggest that accidental children are always better off in a heterosexual family then in a loving homosexual family?  Really?  No, I can’t say that I have any research on the subject but I also trust my commonsense and that tells me that being loved and wanted has to be better then, “oopsie, I just spit another brat out!”

          • notateapartier

            Please give a link to this “research” of yours.

        • Anonymous

          look you can find all the reseacrh you want…you cant change natural law…no matter how hard you try….and tell as many people as you can…..and demonize as many people as you can…..

          • Anonymous

            Glad to know that no matter how much research is done that says children do just as well with same sex parents, you will still try your hardest to prevent those children from having loving homes.  To you, sticking it to the queers is apparantly more important the the well being of children.  You must be so proud…

        • Anonymous

           Nice try   but we won’t bite .

          • Anonymous

            Reading your other comments, I’m not sure you meant to direct this at me…

      • Guest

        Love is what is best for children. Love is given by same sex and opposite sex parents.
        Kids don’t discriminate where the love is coming from, what matters is they feel loved and protected.

      • Anonymous

        so when are you going to be concerned about children of parents divorcing, or abused

        • Anonymous

          um, I have been a foster parent for over 20 years……the divorce rate contributes to the  downturn of soceity……..having more marriages will not change that or make it ok….

          • Anonymous

            Yep, divorce is unquestionably the single social factor that most drives what happens in our society.  Maybe you should seek to pass a law making it illegal for couples to divorce until after their youngest turns 18.

        • Anonymous

           Worry about the BSA or the CC if you want to find where the abused children are.

      • Anonymous

        Children of same sex parents are much more likely to be “wanted” then all the surprise children of heterosexual couples.  Just ask the kids who are born to teenagers

        • Anonymous

          “Jeff?”
          “What is it Chad?”
          “I think we accidentally adopted a baby last night.”
          “Another one?”
          “Yeah…”
          “We need to stop doing that!”

          Said no gay couple, ever…

          • Anonymous

            hahaha!  ROFL!  My point exactly!  Thank you for putting some humor to it.  I was losing my sense of humor.

          • Anonymous

            “Jeff”
            “what now CHAD”
            “does it bother you that our adopted children will never have a mother AND a father”?
            “Who wrote THAT rule?”
            “I think its part of the Natural Law plus, its in the best interest of the child”
            “Now, Chad do you have any proof of such a vile and hateful suggestion?”
            “Well, look at the difficulties that orphans, those raised by a single parent or those in foster care sometimes face, plus the decades of research on mother/father/child relationships”
            “But kids give our relationship the appearance of normal”
            “Jeff, you are a genius”

          • Anonymous

            – Said no gay couple ever
            But, go ahead, ignore all of the researh that says same sex couples do just as well raising children.  Don’t let reality get in the way of your bigotry.

          • Millicent

            “Natural Law” – you mean like those 1500 species of animals that are known to have same-sex relations?

          • Anonymous

            Do you honestly, in your heart of hearts believe that a child is better off with a mother and father who may have not wanted them then being brought up in a loving home that practices love, tolerance, and peace?  I’ve been involved with children who were cast aside for no other reason then they were “in the way”.  I’d much rather see a child in a home where they are loved and wanted.   

          • Yawningattrolls

            Wow – you are a total homophobe aren’t you? Wanna date?

          • Anonymous

            “Ms. Caseworker?”
            “Yes.”
            “I’m pregnant again.”
            “Who’s the father THIS time?”
            “Like I know!!”
            “Weren’t you there, honey?”
            “Yeah, but I was stoned or something.  Besides, this is ONLY my third child out of wedlock.  How soon till I get my increase in benefits?”

            BTW, the majority of babies in this country are born to single women…

      • Anonymous

        yes because there are so many opposite sex christian couples demanding that they be allowed to care for those children that would have been aborted or might go to same sex couples

      • Anonymous

         Show us the links an we can show links that say they do just as well

        • Anonymous

          Really?

          • Anonymous

            Yup

  • Anonymous

    Thanks for all the answers.  I kind of thought that was the case, but you know everyone has their rights trampled on if they can’t get what they feel entitiled to, no matter common sense. 

  • Anonymous

     All of you that are voting yes on 1 are very confused and lost people.
    You really have no idea as to what you are arguing for. It is very sad
    that our world is headed in this direction. 

    • Anonymous

      Why would you say that?  How do you know so much?  Can you see the future?  If I could see the future I would hope to see a world filled with tolerance and peace.  Redefining marriage is not taking away from anyone at all.  It is giving.  Isn’t that what we are suppose to do?  I find your outlook very sad.  It honestly pains me when self-righteous people feel they know what is best for everyone. 

    • seththayer

      Would you be more specific please?  I am lost now…the love of my life and I have not been able to commit and be seen as next-of-kin by the government and we are adrift in the limbo that is a domestic partnership.  Once we can legally get married, I believe it will be better in the long run for us as a couple.  For you it won’t matter.

    • Anonymous

      I am arguing for access to civil marriage. I know exactly what this fight is about.

      Since our country’s inception there have been groups that have seen the promise of our Constitution, and petitioned our society for equal rights, access to government, and legal protections. And all along the way there have been people predicting doom and gloom and national destruction if we extend these things to one more group, race, sex, or other minority.

      And every time they have failed, and every time our nation has failed to self-destruct. This is just the next way in which our constitution is fulfilling its promise to ALL Americans.

    • Anonymous

       The same can be said for people voting no    !!

    • Anonymous

       Do you know how old  marriage is  ?/  try 4,000 years old   an do you know marriage back then was not done for love  ? It was 200 years ago that the CHURCH SAID it should be a religious thing  . Marriage has been redefine  many times over an the church does not own   marriage

  • Anonymous

    No, no, I think that the people voting yes know that they are voting for equality under the law.

  • Anonymous

    hopefully it is 95% no and 5% yes to end this madness.

    • Anonymous

      wrong as usual– when it passes just relax and enjoy it–the madness is from people who are anti equal rights for no good reason except …….. well, for no good reason

      • Anonymous

        um..because we hate remember….and it is hate because we dont believe like you do….

        • Anonymous

          No, it’s hate because you are taking away our rights.  But, go on, keep your martyr complex in full swing.  If there’s one thing your side does best, it’s playing the victim, especially when you aren’t actually a victim of anything.

    • Anonymous

      I don’t think it will be.  I think that people who voted no last time did so because (A) the ballot question was very confusing and some thought they were voting yes when in fact they were voting no and (B) people are starting to see the lies and misconceptions falling apart.  It’ll be okay.  All anyone is asking really is that we don’t discriminate.  Tolerance and peace will follow.  I have faith!

      • Anonymous

         I’d also argue that the fact that it is now a vote for a question rather than voting to justify the government trying to legislate a societal question, the question has a much higher rate of potential success.

        Some people would vote against anything when it’s a few politicians who are trying to make a decision that society needs to find a majority on.  Those who are supporting gay marriage have also done a good job not trying to be too aggressive making a lot of noise but rather trying to discuss their points.  I would not be surprised if the “Yes” vote  gets 55% to 60% of the vote, and potentially a bit higher.

    • Anonymous

      Sorry, but until I am treated equally under our laws as promised by our US Constitution, I will continue to fight for my right to civil marriage, regardless of how this vote goes.

    • Anonymous

       The last time they only lost by 6% so were do you get theses  wild figures ?

  • Anonymous

    gotta wonder about all these “defenders” of marriage– tell us how many of you have been divorced, had affairs, lived with someone without being married, fornicated without the sanctity of marriage…….. then tell us how you defended marriage while doing all these things?( and for joe, tell us how all these things protected the children) and tell us about 50% of marriages end in divorce and tell us about the numbers of unwed teenage mothers (mostly in the bible belt)

    If your marriage is so pathetic that someone else getting married will hurt it so much, ya better start worrying about your own marriage instead of someone elses

    • Anonymous

      Same sex couples wanting to enter into a legally recognized, lifelong commitment? – Threat to marriage and the moral foundations to society.

      Brittany Spears’ drunken Vegas weekend wedding? – Totally fine and in no way devalues marriage.

      Am I the only one who sees something a bit “off” with this picture?

      • Anonymous

        Divorce lawyers are in favor of same sex marriage.

        • Anonymous

          And your point is?

        • Anonymous

          I had not read their press release— but I thank them for their support!

          Yes, same-sex marriage means that there will also be same-sex divorce. Being treated equally under the law is our right, and it does come with responsibilities.

        • Anonymous

          Yea!  Equal opportunity for misery for all couples!!

  • East of Chamberlain Lake in th

    Basic human rights–vote yes.

  • Anonymous

    I have seen a lot of marriages between One Woman and One Man, that were totally WRONG, and totally a sin, when shown the hatred they brought out in each other and towards their children.  You live in an ivory tower sir, and i respect your opinion, but it is for God to decide what a SIN is, and You certainly AINT GOD!!!!

    • You are correct! Many marriages are entered into without God and his blessings. You are also correct in saying it is for God to decide what sin is…and he has! Homosexual acts are sin!

  • Anonymous

    “Just accept a ‘civil union’ so you can get your filthy, greedy hands on everyone else’s money via your precious tax breaks and stop trying to redefine marriage already…” – No, does no work for you? It better, because one way or another, marriage equality is coming and there is nothing you can do about it.  Sure, you might be able to put off the process by a couple of years, but it’s coming anyway.  The only reason your side is offering civil unions is because you know you are losing.  You are losing in the courts and you are losing in the polls.  Your little offer might have worked 15 years ago, but marriage equality is on a roll and you aren’t stopping it now.

    • Anonymous

       The line you quoted would work far better for Big Religion.There is no group of American terrorists like them.

  • Anonymous

     “Permitting gay couples to marry will uphold equal treatment required
    by the U.S. Constitution, promote family values and protect religious
    beliefs. The ballot initiative is a matter of fairness and, in the end,
    care for one another.” – editorial comment

    The assumption in the editorial gay marriage will uphold equal treatment  required by the Constitution is absolutely presumptuous. The Supreme Court has never ruled on gay marriage. If anything the Court’s renderings in prior rulings on marriage don’t even remotely apply even though gay activists maintain they do.

    Furthermore, it will not promote family values. Children want and deserve a mom and a dad, not the less stable relationships of two moms or two dads. Promoting gay marriage will only ensure this does not happen. Regrettably those who pursue this type of arrangement are only looking out for themselves and not the ultimate welfare of children.

    Finally, gay marriage will absolutely not protect marriage as we know it between one man and one woman. The editor knows better than that! Evidence  against this assertion is mounting as homosexuality in other countries permitting gay marriage shows courts mandating forced indoctrination of homosexuality in public schools, religious leaders being denied free speech, and gay adoption being mandated among other things. In Massachusetts where civil unions are now a fact of life, the Catholic Church was forced to close down its adoption centers on account of mandated gay adoption practices.

    That said, it appears this editorial has everything backwards and has no respect for the truth.

    • Anonymous

      deleted.

    • Anonymous

      “If anything the Court’s renderings in prior rulings on marriage don’t even remotely apply even though gay activists maintain they do.” –  Hm, you say this without actually explaining why?  I already know why, it dosn’t apply because it would hurt your argument.

      ‘Children want and deserve a mom and a dad, not the less stable relationships of two moms or two dads” – Research says otherwise, but don’t let reality stop you from denying children stable loving homes.

      “In Massachusetts where civil unions are now a fact of life, the Catholic Church was forced to close down its adoption centers on account of mandated gay adoption practices.” – Isn’t it a sin to lie?  The people who ran that adoption agency said otherwise.
      http://bangordailynews.com/2012/10/17/news/state/former-catholic-charities-official-calls-claims-by-same-sex-marriage-foes-not-true-at-all/

    • Anonymous

      Actually, our courts have been pretty consistent in this century in regards to civil marriage and how it should apply to gays and lesbians. I have seen no reason to suggest that the US Supreme Court would rule differently than the lower courts have been.

      To suggest that lack of access to civil marriage would lead gays and lesbians to pursue traditional male/female marriage is preposterous— gay and lesbian couples are raising children today across Maine, and we should absolutely afford them the opportunity to protect their families with civil marriage. They certainly are not going to suddenly split up and pursue loveless married relationships, and that certainly would not be in the best interests of those children in that case.

      Finally, no one voting YES on question 1 is seeking to deny civil marriage to men and women, so your claim that this vote will not protect marriage is wrong. The rest of your writing here is more of the deceptive rhetoric we have come to expect from those opposed to civil marriage equality, and has no bearing on what we are actually voting on here in Maine.

      I have voted YES on question 1, and I hope the majority of Mainers join me so we can lead our nation in yet another matter of equality!

    • Anonymous

      It is about HUMAN beings.   What is so hard to understand?

    • Tedlick Badkey

      Families to not all fit your narrow views.

      Homosexual reality is being taught in schools without gay marriage… religious leaders deserve no rights that are not extended to every other citizen… gay adoption already exists in every state in the united states to one degree or another. All of those are straw man arguments at best, cowardly lies at worst.

      And there’s your BIG LIE. It was ILLEGAL to deny adoptions to gay citizens before gay marriage was legal in MA. In fact, they placed children in gay homes for 17 years before gay marriage was a reality.

      Here’s the report from this very website: http://bangordailynews.com/2012/10/17/news/state/former-catholic-charities-official-calls-claims-by-same-sex-marriage-foes-not-true-at-all/?ref=latest

      You’re SO desperate to see this through that you’re now openly lying! Amazing!

      It appears that YOU are the only one here who has everything backwards and has no respect for the truth.

      If you have to lie, you only prove that your opponents are correct.

    • Anonymous

      the Catholic Church was forced to close down its adoption centers on account of mandated gay adoption practices. Do you know why they shut down   because they can not discriminate .

      Furthermore, it will not promote family values. Children want and
      deserve a mom and a dad, not the less stable relationships of two moms
      or two dads. So does that mean that the state should take kids away  when the get a divorce or one of them dies  ?

       

      • Anonymous

        The catholic church was making money handling adoptions.  If that’s the case, then they can’t discriminate against the people who want to use their services.  The Maine Supreme Judicial Court said gays and lesbians can adopt children.  If that’s the law, then the catholic church must abide by it.  Or, it doesn’t have to handle adoptions for fees.   Once you enter the marketplace, you have to play by state rules.  That’s why the couple you see on TV from Vermont got sued.  They offered their inn for rent to hold wedding receptions.  They can’t do that and then turn around and say, oh, but we don’t support interracial marriages, so no black-white couples, or, we don’t like muslims, so no islamic weddings here, or, we don’t believe in SSM, so no gay weddings here.  Too bad, they offered their businesses for hire.  If they don’t want to do gay weddings, they can’t do any weddings.  That’s the way government works–you sell a product, if I have money, I get to buy it.  You can’t say no if you don’t like what I am or what I believe.  I for one wouldn’t have settled for a measly 30K.

        • Anonymous

          It wasn’t even that they were handling adoptions.  They needed to comply with anti-discrimination laws because they were receiving taxpayer money.  They were also willing to comply with the law.

          “Frankly, the only criteria for us was what was in the best interest of the child and we thought the Vatican was changing that,” said Meade. “People are suggesting in the campaign that it had something to do with the [same-sex marriage law] that allowed for marriage equality. That’s not correct.”” – Peter Meade, former board chairman.

          The BDN had an article on it a couple weeks ago.
          http://bangordailynews.com/2012/10/17/news/state/former-catholic-charities-official-calls-claims-by-same-sex-marriage-foes-not-true-at-all/

        • Anonymous

          yes you are so right an the ads lie on tv

    • Anonymous

      Discrimination against gays and lesbians is already against the law in Maine. If someone tried to discriminate against a gay couple seeking to adopt, they’d be shut down immediately. That’s regardless of whether gays and lesbians have the right to marry. Your claim of “evidence” is, as usual, a lie. 

  • ChuckGG

    I am sure there are people who believe all that despite facts to the contrary.

    As far as “natural law” goes, let’s see how all that stands up in our secular court system.

    The religious crowd says we account for 3% of the population?  Okay, so 3% of the population, of which perhaps 50% might legally marry, resulting in a net of 1.5% of the population, is going to cause the demise of the earth?

    I guess that part that stuns me the most is just this:  We are already here!  We already have relationships.  We already have families with kids.  We have had for decades upon decades.  Legalizing SSM will not increase the number of gay people or gay families.  The only difference is that now, finally, our families will have the same legal rights as your family.  If the law does not pass, we won’t be disbanding our families and moving out of state.

    What the anti-SSM crowd needs is a bucket of ice-water in the face with a megaphone in front on them yelling, “Wake the %*$! up!”

    (Well, I can dream, can’t I?)

    • Anonymous

      It’s the political correctness and the so called “megaphone and ice water” read jamming down our throats that non supporters are getting peeved about. If this goes through, it won’t be the end of the political ramifications. A sexual preference should have no political ramifications whatsoever.    Maybe if the gay lobby quits yelling so loud, people will become more tolerant.

      • Anonymous

        Sorry that my rights are being pushed down your throat, but that is the only way most of you will listen! You take for granted all the rights you have and if we didn’t yell and demand what is ours it would never happen! So stop your griping and go vote No as no matter how quiet we are you will never support our civil rights and you know it!

        • ptkitty

          Sick and tired of your demands to “rights” that you don’t have.  

          If  there were such rights, you’d already have them.  Contrary to your assertions, gay marriage will never be the law of the land.  Get use to it.

          • Anonymous

            Yeah, if slaves had a right to be free, they would have never been slaves in the first place!  Oh, wait…

            Contrary to your bigotry, same sex marriage will be legal, sooner or later.

          • Anonymous

            Slavery and SSM are two completely different situations that have no comparison.  

          • How do you function having such a small brain?

          • Anonymous

            Just because I don’t agree with you, doesn’t mean I lack intellect. I’m glad to see the tolerance you and your friends preach only goes one way. I’ll be glad to see your comments on Nov.7th.

          • Anonymous

             It hasn’t hurt any other conservatives.You can tell by the scraping knuckles.

          • Anonymous

            Civil rights are civil rights.  A better comparison would be interracial marriage.

          • Gay marriage will be the law of the land within the next 5 years, if that, so you better get used to it.

          • Anonymous

            Every time I see you post I picture a chimp with severe MR pounding away at the keyboard. Thank you for your humourous posts, I really do enjoy a good laugh thanks to you. Keep up the comedy gold. I mean, no one can say things that dumb, and still be in control of their mental faculties. Right?

          • Anonymous

             Best answer ever.Thanks much!Too bad it insults chimps.

          • Anonymous

            You just made me laugh out loud, thank you!!!

        • Anonymous

          You have no marital rights by marrying the same sex.

      • ChuckGG

        Hardly.  Back in 2009, the Maine Legislature passed SSM and the governor signed it into law.  That is the way it should have been left.  Quite correctly, the Legislature saw in injustice in the law with regard to civil rights and corrected the matter.  That hardly was “…yelling so loud[ly]…”.

        But, do you think the religious crowd could leave well enough alone and grasp the concept that any first year law student could comprehend that civil marriage and religious marriage are two separate issues?  Oh, no, they couldn’t do that.  Instead, we are pummeled with every name in book, accused of pedophilia, bestiality, and causing the end of civilization as we know it.  Our families and children are attacked and all in the name of a particular flavor of “spook in the sky” that not all religions agreed with.

        So, if we are a bit ticked off that we had to spend the last 3 years trying to un-do the mess the religious crowd and its millions of dollars of hate money created, well, excuuuuuuse me!

        As far as those political ramifications go, you must be really upset.  First, it was those uppity blacks getting into office, then women breaking through the glass ceiling and not knowing “their place” in the home and office, and those Hispanics!  Well, they are getting in everywhere, speaking that foreign language of theirs.  Now, here come the homos asking for the same right to get a civil marriage that every liquored-up reality show contestant can get in 10 minutes.

        Yes, I guess the “gay lobby” should go back to picking cotton and shucking corn.

        • You just opened a huge case of whoop butt with that post.

          • ChuckGG

            That’s my job.  I try to inject logic into illogical arguments, with varying degrees of success.

            The anti-gays just don’t get it.  From the government viewpoint, a marriage license is a lot like a driver’s license.  They issue it, record it in Vital Records, and allow you to file jointly on your taxes, and so on.  It has zero to do with religion.  There isn’t even a place on the form to add “religious affiliation.”

            I haven’t been inside a church in years – the last time was an organ concert, I think.  In any event, after obtaining a marriage license, the last place either of us would think about going is to a church, so why are we hearing so much from these people???

            I feel like I am playing basketball and an umpire from the British Cricket Team is screaming in my ear about batsmen and bowlers.  Huh?  Go away already – wrong game.

            Gawd, they are annoying.

          •  Arguing with a Christian is a lot like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around like it’s victorious – Anonymous

        • Anonymous

          Yes, the standing governor had the legislation ramrodded through a liberal majority in the state capitol, then he signed it into law because he knew all to well the Maine citizens would not have passed it on their own. That is a good example of “shoving down peoples throat”. Since then, the people have decided, and will decide again until the gay lobby does enough door to door misinformation campaigning, then they will get their way. Who knows, it may pass in a week. Then lets all the discrimination law suits begin. All because we now live in a society where “dudes dig dudes” and “chicks dig chicks”.

          • Now live in? Have you not read your bible lately? Why did your so called god smite Sodom?

            As for dudes digging dudes and chicks digging chicks, that has been going on longer than man has been around. You just refuse to let go of your stone age brain.

          • Anonymous

            Where do you get your twisted facts Kev? Stick to the subject matter.

          • So there is no god and your bible is 100% false, correct?

          • Anonymous

             The twisting is 100% the R’s,busybodies and antis.I’ve seen it already.Liars across the board.

          • Anonymous

            Kevin, do you support gay marriage?

          • Yes, I do.

          • Anonymous

            Very cool, thanks!

          • Anonymous

             This dude digs chicks and has a special one AND we are both voting YES On One!

          • Anonymous

             In Maine it is all ready a crime for a business to discriminate against someone because of their sexual orientation.  We don’t hear about all those law suits.  The difference is, people let their religious beliefs interfere with civil rights.  If you think people that are gay don’t deserve the same civil rights as anyone else, you better go back and read a few documents set forth by our forefathers.

          • Anonymous

            “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
            that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
            that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  notice how it says their creator, not the creator.  The first amendment to the constitution gives the right to freedom of religion and freedom from religion.  The definition of marriage was changed when we enacted laws to give benefits to married couples.   Not because of the couples sexual orientation.

          • ChuckGG

            Ramrodded?  Hmm… well, I will let that pass.  Anyway, who elected that “liberal majority” to the Legislature in the first place?  We do have a representative government.  Those legislators represented their constituents.  They are elected not necessarily to vote the majority (that would a pure democratic government rather than our republic), but to vote instead for what is best for the State.  A pure democracy might vote to build roads everywhere but then vote against a tax increase to pay for them. 

            So, I don’t think the governor ramrodded anything.  The door-to-door “misinformation” is anything but.  You want misinformation?  Contact NOM who has lost in the courts a number of times.

            I suspect SSM will pass this time.  Mainers don’t like to be fooled twice.  They see the evil that is NOM and how it lied to Mainers.  Note also, the Catholic church has backed down.  Give them their due – they don’t usually throw good money after bad.  They see the anti-SSM ship slipping beneath the waves and they don’t want to be blamed.  They don’t want to be on the wrong side of history and are counting on the short memories of the laity.

          • Anonymous

             They’ve spent so much on the sex abuse lawsuits,they’re  going broke.Look at all the church property up for sale in MA(including one where they leaked an internal email that they wouldn’t sell to a gay couple-whoops!)Not to mention they’re dying off and refusing to let half of their people fully participate like real religions do.The day the last CC closes in ME will be a day for celebration.YES ON ONE here!

          • ptkitty

            “Maine voters, here is what you need to know to defeat the homosexual agenda. They cannot prove they are homosexual-born. No genetic evidence, no irrefutable proof.  They will respond with insults, professional conjecture, endless biased studies, but they can’t escape the fact that there is not a single shred of evidence to irrefutably prove homosexuals are homosexual-born.” 

            And that is what is at the heart of the gay marriage argument. Having no choice. 

            Vote NO on 1.  I doubt that will end the debate, but it will end it until proponents can prove they are born homosexual…which they can’t.

          • Anonymous

            Not true— what is at the heart of the gay marriage argument is that we should be treating ALL Maine families equally under our laws, and that includes the opportunity for civil marriage.

            We do not forbid excommunicated Catholics access to civil marriage, we do not forbid Jews and gentiles from civil marriage together, and we do not prohibit interracial marriage for civil marriage— yet all of these things go against the teachings of various churches, and churches are free to forbid marriage ceremonies for these people.

            And your religious views are very much a choice.

          • notateapartier

            Prove that you were born heterosexual. 

          • ChuckGG

            True enough.  The numbers for the USA over the past decades is something like $2B (billion) paid out in sexual abuse case settlements.  The attendance numbers look low.  In most pews one sees a smaller and much older crowd and not a lot of young families with lots of kids. 

            Recruitment of new priests and especially nuns is very low.

            There also is a huge gap in doctrine vs. acceptance.  Most of the laity accepts gays and SSM.  The church is officially against artificial birth control yet 98% of the laity uses or have used these methods during their reproductive lives.  This is obvious.  When I was a kid, my friends’ parents often came from a generation of 10 or more.  My friends had 4 other siblings.  They grew up, married, and had 3 kids.  These days you seen 1 or 2 and sometimes none.  The trend is apparent.

            Moreover, there seems to be a decline in those religions that I would call ritualistic and dogmatic.  What was at one time fearful, reverent, and authoritarian, looks a bit out of place and dated.  The sexual abuse cases have done nothing to instill respect.

            In my mother’s day, churches often were places to meet and socialize for the week.  Back before telephones and the internet, this made sense.  These days, that need very often is fulfilled elsewhere.  So, one is left with “the message.”  Unfortunately, the message has aspects that are perceived today to be out-of-touch, dated, and inapplicable in today’s society.  Also, today’s crowd has discovered that you won’t be instantly struck dead if you walk into another faith’s church.  Facts and Reality have crept in.  The laity is much better educated.

            For me, I don’t have a dog in this fight.  I am only observing from the outside.  I love the old architecture and the historical significance of it all but much like any fraternal organization in this day and age, it has lost much of its “punch” and may well be much more marginalized in the future unless it changes its message and finds something to attract and hold new parishioners.  Its heavy-handed “fear of God” approach is not well accepted any longer.  And, with the overhead it has it is not surprising it is feeling the financial pinch.

          • notateapartier

            “Ramrodded” and “shoved down your throat”. It’s a scary world you live in.

    • MARINE73

      It does not matter how natural law stands up in your “secular” courts.  God’s law is supreme as it is the only law that is unchanging and unyielding.  How you live is your choice because God gave you free will.  It will be your choices that one day you will be held accountable in the only court of law that will still remain.  It is you who needs to wake up, for your sake.

      • Anonymous

        I don’t care about your god’s law.

      • ChuckGG

        But, while we are here on earth, I will stick with our secular laws.

        You are entitled to your beliefs but you are not entitled to impose those beliefs in my secular laws.

      • Anonymous

         The God’s law that I follow is to do unto others as I would have them do unto me. If God has a problem with homosexuality — which I doubt because He created it and it’s just as “natural” as anything else — I’ll let Him deal with it. History is full of strife and misery caused by misguided zealots taking it on themselves to do what they believed was “God’s will.” Jesus taught Love, not judgement, of others. (Judge not lest you be judged, etc.)

        • ChuckGG

          Interestingly, the “Golden Rule” you described – treat others as you would wish to be treated – long precedes Christ.  And, really, it is kind of common sense and very universal.

      • Anonymous

        Actually didn’t his laws kind of change from the old testament to the new testament?

      •  My god is Thor, he carries Mjolnir (a really big hammer). Your god died nailed to a cross… Hmmmm kind of makes you wonder.

        • Anonymous

          Jesus said he would get rid of all the sinners.  Thor said he would get rid of all the ice giants.  I don’t see any ice giants around…

      • Anonymous

        To which of the over 28,000 gods are you referring? Baal? Osirus? Horus? You need to be a little more specific. 

        • Anonymous

          Cthulhu.

        •  I think I will start attending the Church of Bill and Ted. They have one simple rule, “Be excellent to each other, and party on dudes!”

          • notateapartier

            That covers a lot.

  • Scott Harriman

    If people start performing any “vulgar, reprehensible, sexual deviant behavior” in public they should be prosecuted under disorderly conduct/indecent exposure laws.

    This has nothing to do with marriage.

    • Guest

      Why try to steal a title that belongs to another group of people? Let’s face it, same sex couples are never going to be identical to opposite sex couples. One couple can use genes from each partner and produce an offspring naturally (in most circumstances) and one can’t. Sure gay couples can have kids through other means but not through natural reproduction.  Why try to call it the same thing when it’s clearly not? Why not call it “marriage 2.0” or better yet “marriage supreme”? I don’t have a problem with gay couples having all the same tax breaks and rights, just get your own terminology – try being original. Maybe you should take up your case with Mother Nature because that’s what’s making you different. This is as simple as calling a spade a spade.

      • Anonymous

        A title that belongs to another group of people?  So gays are not people, human beings?  Natural reproduction?  What about souples who are infertile and cannot be parents through “natural” reporduction?  It is MARRIAGE.  Condoned by the town you get married in.  Mother nature?  What about people born without sight or a club foot.   This is a civil rights matter.  Liberty and justice for ALL, remember?

        • Guest

          Where did I say gays are not people? 

          If you re-read my post in regards to reproduction I said “in most circumstances” – meaning that a medical condition in one or both people prevent natural reproduction. With gay couples it is 100% certain that cannot reproduce… NOT a medical condition. It’s the laws of nature that keep them from reproducing. Those suffering from blindness or club foot have an sickness or ailment… both are irrelevant to this discussion because homosexuality is not an ailment. As far as I’m concerned gay couples can have all the civil rights of marriage, just call it a different term. Would you allow redheads to be called blondes if they wanted? In my mind it is equally silly – they are both genetically different in the major defining feature. I’m not looking to withhold rights from anyone, I just believe they need to have their own term for their partnership. 

          • Anonymous

            With certain straight couples, it is 100% certain they cannot reproduce, what’s your point?

            “As far as I’m concerned gay couples can have all the civil rights of marriage, just call it a different term. ” – Sorry, but separate but equal was ruled unconstitutional decades ago…

          • Guest

            Clearly I’m speaking about both groups as a whole, not on a case by case basis…

            If “separate by equal” is unconstitutional why does our country still use terms like “blacks” and “whites” in reference to the race of people? Do both groups not have the same rights (while falling under different titles)? Why weren’t African Americans demanding to be referred to as white?

          • Anonymous

            That is a stupid argument.  Separate but equal relates to the government and the law.  As far as the law is concerned, race does not matter.  It is mean to be applied equally.  Same thing with sexual orientation.  It shouldn’t matter what your sexual orientation is, if you have a right to marriage, you have a right to marriage.

          • Guest

            Then you admit it yourself – the law has nothing to do with the terminology used. The law merely enforces the equality that both groups receive. I state again: call it whatever you want… just not marriage.

          • Anonymous

            No.  The only reason your side is offering civil unions is because you know you are losing.  You are about 10 years too late with your little offer.  It’s “separate but equal”.

          • Guest

            I can’t respond to your comment below for some reason so here it is: I’m not offering anything here other than my opinion and responding to your comments based on and my reasons for voting “No on 1”. If SSM should pass next week than congratulations but I hope that it doesn’t until it has been re-worded. 

          • Anonymous

            Well, it’s just good to know that you don’t support true equality.

          • Anonymous

            Reply #2: It’s amazing how little tolerance you have but are demanding it from others. You know what they say about opinions and thank goodness I have mine. 

          • Anonymous

            I’m not “demanding” anything from you.  I don’t care that you don’t believe in equality.  All I want is my right to marriage.  How big of an ego do you need to think that your opinion of my relationship actually matters to me?

            P.S. If you don’t want people to criticize your argument, then don’t post.

          • Anonymous

             While people squabble on here over a “term” I beg of you to consider the big picture here. This fight is not about the label but more about a minority group of people who have been suppressed for generations upon generations and desperately want the acceptance and approval of their neighbors. It is my belief that the benefits of a legal marriage license would be fantastic – but bigger than that – the pyschological benefits of gay mainers growing up in a place where maybe they feel like they are truly accepted members of the community. I believe that acceptance is something to be so much more proud of than judgment and we have an opportunity to show that to the Country in just a few days. I ask you to just for a second reconsider your vote.

          • Anonymous

            Do you actually think that, no matter the outcome of this vote, that this behavior is suddenly going to be accepted?

          • Anonymous

            well because that would be like calling red, blue. Its a description. 

          • Anonymous

            Really?  Do you not understand that their skin is black, but people will use “black” in a predjudice way to undermine another human being?   There is a ceremony when two people unite.  It is called marriage by the human race.  Calling it something else undermines the two people as undeserving to be married along with the rest of the population.  Please! 

          • Anonymous

            Because it’s not about what people are called, but how our government treats us equally under our laws as the Constitution demands.

          • notateapartier

            You are absolutely correct. A gay couple cannot biologically reproduce offspring using their genetic material. It is imperative that we stop these kind of couples from formalizing their union in a “marriage”, because if they are not married, they- oh, wait a minute, they still won’t reproduce biologically. 
            Never mind. 

        • Anonymous

          No, this has nothing to do with civil rights. The gay lobby has made it a civil right issue. And what town is condoning it?

          • Anonymous

            The US Supreme Court has stated in numerous cases (most notably Loving v Virginia) that marriage is indeed a civil right.

          • Anonymous

            Yes, marriage is a civil right. Between a man and a women.

          • Why are you so afraid of gay people?

          • Anonymous

            I’m not the least bit afraid. What did I say to indicate fear? I happen to work with 2 gay people, and carry on a social life with them. I have the utmost respect for them, as they do to me. They also think the whole SSM thing is senseless and a big power grab by the gay lobby. They happen to be very happy people, which is hard to say for a lot of other gay people.

          • Anonymous

            Obviously you don’t respect them enough to respect their rights.  As for them not wanting equal rights, I think you are lying through your teeth.

          • Anonymous

            And courts have rule that not true. 

          • Anonymous

             I heard the Gay Lobby is fabulously decorated…

          • Anonymous

            marriage is a CIVIL right. you need have no affiliation with any religious denomination to partake in marriage. unless you are gay. then that civil right is denied you. and to the chicka above who finds it reasonable that gays “find another term and not use ‘marriage'”; when did you apply for the patten on that word?

          • Anonymous

            What don’t you get? If the same sex was meant to co-habitate, we would have been designed asexual. Creatures are on this earth to perpetuate. The only way that can happen in the gay community is to cheat nature.

          • New word for your brain, if it can handle it: parthenogenesis

            in biology, a form of reproduction in which the ovum develops into a new individual without fertilization. Natural parthenogenesis has been observed in many lower animals (it is characteristic of the rotifers), especially insects, e.g., the aphid. In many social insects, such as the honeybee and the ant, the unfertilized eggs give rise to the male drones and the fertilized eggs to the female workers and queens. It has also been observed in some snakes, fish, and monitor lizards. The phenomenon is rarer among plants (where it is called parthenocarpy) than among animals. Unusual patterns of heredity can occur in parthenogenetic organisms. For example, offspring produced by some types are identical in all inherited respects to the mother.

          • Anonymous

            I’m sure this process is completely valid in the human body.

          • Anonymous

             and if we were meant to fly, we would have been given wings, yet we do it on a daily basis with help.

          • Anonymous

             creatures are on this earth to perpetuate? surely you do not mean ONLY to perpetuate? we are here to love one another. it is an exercise in humanness to have empathy for those whose plight is not our own. it always astounds me when people so vehemently deny rights to others that they themselves enjoy with impunity. i keep waiting to get used to it, but i never do. YES on #1.

          • Anonymous

            Are you actually arguing that allowing gays and lesbians to be treated equally by our government will result in our species going extinct?

            Wow.

          • Anonymous

            They are fellow human beings AMERICANS who deserve whatever you and I have.

      • notateapartier

        I urge you to make this same suggestion to all of the heterosexual, but childless couples. Obviously, they are not on the same level as you and your spouse are.

      • Anonymous

        Then why don’t we have ALL couples have civil unions to get rights and have none of them linked to marriage! Would straight couples agree to that??

        • ChuckGG

          Good idea but that ship has sailed.  The LEGAL term in use today for the concept you describe is “marriage.”  It so happens churches use the same term.  Perhaps, they should change theirs to “matrimony.” 

          There are many legal reasons why we must stick with the term, “marriage.”  Basically, you can’t have two terms in law that are supposed to mean identical concepts.  If they are identical, in reality, then one term is used.  Additionally, when a couple is married, the genders of the participants in the marriage must remain neutral so the law is “blind” to the genders.  For example, we have “marriage” as a legal term.  We do not have “inter-racial marriage” as a legal term.  A couple who is legally “married” is just plain “married,” without distinction to their race, religion, nationality, and soon, gender.

          Where the problem has arisen is that the churches believe they own the word “marriage,” when the civil system also uses it.  For example, two straight atheists could be married by a judge where no mention of God was made.  In the eyes of our legal system, the courts, the State, all other States, the Feds, and all other countries, that couple is legally married.  Case closed.  The churches might disagree as that couple did not have their marriage “blessed” by some God, but that is irrelevant to the secular civil government.  Make sense?

      • Anonymous

        WAKE UP!  Seriously, it does not matter at all what you call it… marriage, civil unions, etc; There is a substantial portion of society that will NOT accept any form of same sex relationship period.  It is simply NOT about the word marriage.   Just as there will ALWAYS be racist and prejudiced people… there will always be those opposed to any rights for the GLBT crowd.  

        • ChuckGG

          Well, of course, that is their problem, isn’t it?  As long as legal, civil marriage prevails for SS couples, I could not care less how those people feel about it.  It doesn’t affect them, me, or anyone else.

      • Anonymous

        I love the fact that gay marriage supporters even argue that they can have children naturally and use the fact that some couples are infertile lol…gays can not have sex and reproduce at any time or with any possibilty …man and woman can! Love your post and your totally correct. I’m a no voter and proud ….love who u want but leave my rights of marriage alone and don’t steal my way of life is what I say to yes voters… create your own terminology for your love is all I ask

        • Anonymous

          What exactly do you think is going to happen if question one is passed? It isn’t going to change your life or your rights in any aspect at all…I happen to be a seventeen year old lesbian, who has loved and been with an amazing girl for the past three years. Most heterosexual teenage couples do not last this long..and I would love to someday marry her in the state that I was born and raised in. So please, before you’re so sure that you want vote no, think about it…what’s it actually hurting?

        • Anonymous

          For some people it’s just about terminology…if I got medical insurance, or some other advantage through work…I wouldn’t be able to put my partner on my insurance, because even though we are committed and in love, we aren’t “Married”

        • Anonymous

          The terminology our laws use is civil marriage, that is why we are asking to have equal access to civil marriage.

          How does our having equal treatment by our government in any way impact your marriage rights? Honest question.

      • Anonymous

        We do call it something different: civil marriage.

        Civil marriage has no requirements that a couple produce children, biologically or through adoption. Civil marriage has no requirements that a couple hold a ceremony in a church, temple, or mosque. Civil marriage is entirely a construct of our government, and is discrete and separate from the marriage ceremony you have the freedom to engage in.

        I truly have never found someone that is only hung up on the use of the word ‘marriage’ in this— that is always a smoke screen to hide an uglier opinion about gays and lesbians and whether we are capable of forming the lifelong, supportive commitment marriage demands.

        I have voted YES on question 1, and I hope the majority of Mainers join me! Because we should allow all Maine families the opportunity to enter into civil marriage.

      • notateapartier

        You are right. When the Supreme Court deemed it legal in all states that black and white people could marry, there really should have been some separate term created for those mixed-race marriages.  I mean, those people probably should have had a term like “half-marriage” or “broomstick marriage” or take your idea, and give them “marriage supreme”. Now they think they are just as good as us.

  • Anonymous

    Based on your views, half of traditional marriages would not pass muster either but marriage isn’t just about sex, it’s really about two people wanting to live in a recognized relationship, with all the social advantages that come with it. Natural law is defined in several ways but is generally seen as based on natural human reason. Since human reason has evolved over the centuries why should a human civic construct such as marriage not evolve as wel? You are right, religion should not enter into it.

  • Anonymous

    So what? Why does what you *think* about this make any difference at all? 

    Why are you so *arrogant* as to think that anyone that is against it should have any say? 

    You are messing with peoples’ lives based on your narrow minded beliefs. 

    How DARE you judge something that is positively none of your business to begin with?

    • Anonymous

      Really?
      And why does what YOU think about this make any difference?
      And why are YOU so arrogant as to think than anyone against it should NOT have any say?
      And YOU are so narrow minded as to discount anyone elses beliefs.
      And how dare YOU judge anything or anyone who disagrees with you.
      And this is OUR business, and WE shall govern OURSELVES accordingly, and disregard anything further YOU have to say.

      • Anonymous

        How? HOW is it your business? How does another loving couple getting married remotely effect you in your day to day life?  It doesn’t!

        • Guest

          It is our business because it continues to be brought to a vote… Luckily in this country we don’t have to justify our vote to you and all that matters is the box that we check. Let the vote speak for itself. Mainer’s have previously spoken that they want marriage to remain between a man and woman. In a week we will see if the percentages have changed.

          • Anonymous

            So you have no legitimate reason other than meddling in the lives of people you don’t even know… That’s really quite admirable. :/

          • Guest

            My reasons are posted above. You may not agree with them because they are not in line with your views. I have not seen one single valid reason given for why homosexual couples need to have the term of “marriage” when there are thousands of other titles they could choose from. I’ll help same-sex couples get all the same rights as hetero couples but I’m not going to start calling a spade a club because it’s simply not true. 

          • Anonymous

            Because plain and simple that is what it is MARRIAGE.

          • Guest

            Thank you for putting it in caps – that’s the term we’re discussing!

          • Anonymous

            Thank you for posting one of  most sensible non-emotional comments on this site.  It comes down to the vote.  Whether it passes or not, it probably will still be a ballot issue in the future.
            One thing is clear, you cannot demand anyone to vote your way.

  • Okay whats next then 1 man and towe women being able to marry legally? If not then that is going to be against thier beliefs and rights.

  • Your argument is neither logical or sane. Marriage has nothing to do with procreation,  egg, sperm. and a lab is all the is required to create life, no marriage license needed.  Secondly, being a minority does not mean they lack power, if anything the opposite is true. A minority getting a majority to see their point of view is a rather large display of power. As for the tax breaks, currently any tax breaks that are given due to a marriage license are a special right for heterosexuals only. Besides the tax breaks aren’t worth the fight, it is the myriad of other rights that go along with the marriage license they are after.

  •  Natural law is universal and immutable… OK, that must be why there are hundreds of species other than humans that display homosexual behavior. Your argument is invalid.

  • Anonymous

    I believe in freedom of religion, and in separation of church and state.  I’d hope that 99% of Americans agree with that.  Supposing that you do agree, then you must also agree that one religion shouldn’t enforce their religious beliefs on all others.  More importantly, States and Federal governments shouldn’t legislate religious choices.  This issue – whether to allow gays and lesbians the same rights and benefits, as well as duties and obligations as hetersexual couples – should not be based on religious beliefs, but on the protections that are provided in our Constitution.  In case you haven’t read the Fourteenth Amendment, it says “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”  What part of that says that “except for homosexuals”?

    Do the right thing, and vote “Yes!”

  • Anonymous

    Although I am for question 1, I think there is another issue here. 
    Marriage is a spiritual thing, whether you get married in a religious or civil ceremony. The     government shouldn’t be involved in matters that are either religious, private,  personal or all three. Except where there is a question of child custody or property rights, the government should have no say in who or what constitutes a marriage. Get the government out of the marriage business. After all, having the government’s “blessing” doesn’t mean that a marriage will work or that those involved will be  happy in it.   

    • Anonymous

      Thank you for your support!

      I have stated many times that I would be fine with eliminating civil marriage altogether, and instituting civil unions for the government functions you describe. But so far that hasn’t been on the table. In other states where civil unions are offered, the same exact groups come out to oppose those just as fiercely.

    • Anonymous

       So you want the church to run   marriage  ??

  • SierraTango

    How is wanting to keep their own money “getting their…hands on everyone else’s money…”? That doesn’t even make sense.

    Try a coherent argument next time.

  • Anonymous

     Don’t worry about that- the corrupt gang that R’s are using to commit multistate voter fraud with can deliver those signatures for them.Oh wait,where’s that story a week before the election?Where’s the story on Scott Desjarlais?

  • Anonymous

    There is no “equality” about anything having to do with mariage. That little ring traditionally placed on the fingers of Bride and Groom represent a chain that binds them as one.  Therefore one partner, sometimes both, must give up all that makes them individuals so they can be a pair. The traditional vows which make the woman “Cleeeve’ to the man, and do his bidding unquestionably are in no way a herald of “equality.”

    Single folks who are taxed higher, and loose their right to “assign” without benefit of spouse-hood, their spousal benefits makes a single person’s employment worth less than that of married individuals.

    True “equality” in the marriage arena can only be attained when the State gets out of the marriage business altogether.

    I understand why Gays want the “special rights” that straights have.  It is about “movin-on-up” Like the Jeffersons.  O.K. and alright.  Your self interests are served by marriage and the 1,400 benefits that status brings.  Being self-serving isn’t a crime.  But please don’t insult me by telling me this is about “equality” When gays have won their “right” I still won’t be worth as much as one member of a married team at work. 

    This single atheist straight guy is voting no!

    • Anonymous

      What odd reasoning to stand against the equal treatment under the law gays and lesbians are seeking.

      • Anonymous

         You see this brings all kinds of people   good,, bad an nuts

    • Anonymous

       What  are special  rights  ??

      • Tedlick Badkey

        Special rights are those rights that folks get for choosing a religion.

        They’re spelled out in the Civil Rights acts of ’64 and ’68.

        • Anonymous

           tuxkat said gays want special right  how can it be special rights  ?

          • Tedlick Badkey

            If everybody had ’em, they wouldn’t be special…

            But not everyone does… so, they’re special rights extended to religious folks but not others.

          • Anonymous

             Every one can get married  except gay  so  its not a special rights they are asking just the SAME right

          • Tedlick Badkey

            I agree.

            I was referring to the special rights given in the Civil Rights Acts.

  • under the pursuit of happiness.

  • Anonymous

    You are really ignorant Jack.  I am gay and I created two children with a woman that I was legally married to.  Problem is Jack is that it didn’t work out cause I was gay and thought I could “change”.  This woman I married could have been your daughter.  Would you want your daughter to marry a gay man????????????  Yes gays can marry in all fifty states….they can marry your daughter or your son…someting to think about.

    • Anonymous

      No, you are bi-sexual. You swing both ways. Probably born that way, right?

      • Anonymous

         Such tidy little labels. I’m sure you have investigated the situation thoroughly so you could slip your cute little label on him. How enlightening that label, it fits nicely in your little  world.

        • Anonymous

          No need to investigate. He said he was married to a woman and fathered two children. Then he decided that he was gay. That makes him bi-sexual. And extremely confused.

          • Anonymous

             YOU say he is bi-sexual. Does this mean that you think having sex is what describes your sexuality? Somebody who has sex with themselves, does this make them homosexual? YOU say he is confused. Have you asked him?

            If you go to the store intending to buy fish and come home with a nice pork chop, does this make you confused? If a man has sex with a woman and decides that this is not for him, this makes him confused? Now I’m confused.

            How about this. A man who continually goes from male to female to have sex is bi-sexual. A man who marries a woman, realizes it isn’t right for him, then spends his life with another man is gay. Not confused, not bi-sexual. You can rely on your labels for comfort in your life, just don’t run around in the public sphere trying to split humanity into nice easy groups. How about you just agree that humans are sexual creatures that resist easy categorizations, and that labeling people into groups makes you seem to be too interested in their sex lives.

          • Anonymous

            I am curious…if people are supposedly born gay, how do they not know that heterosexuality isn’t right for them long before they marry someone of the opposite sex? I’m not looking for an argument. I’m ignorant of the thought process. I would think that if I knew I was gay, I’d sure as heck be aware of it before I walked down the aisle.

          • Anonymous

            It’s different for a lot of people.  Some people are genuinely confused about their sexuality and don’t realize their true sexual orientation until later in life.  Others marry as a way to try to “fix” themselves.  They think that by marrying a woman, they will be able to learn to be straight.  However, this normally doesn’t work.  Some could even marry due to societal pressure to be straight.  Again, this option normally does not turn out well.

          • Anonymous

             Like crs5012723 says.

          • Anonymous

            Having been married to a woman and fathering children does not make him bi-sexual. Educate yourself on the correct definition of the word.

          • Anonymous

            He has admitted to having sex with a woman, and then a man. What is the politically correct term for that this week? Sexually confused? Game for anything? Flip flopper? Free agent?

          • Anonymous

            Sexual orientation is not defined solely by sexual behavior.  Before you comment, at least try to have the smallest bit of understanding for what you are commenting on.  Otherwise, you come off as looking not so smart, although, judging from your posts, I guess looking not-so-smart is pretty easy for you.

          • Anonymous

            I come off as looking not so smart? Maybe it is just because I am on the opposite side of an issue from you that is skewing your ability to judge my intelligence level. My I.Q. was estimated to be 150 back in 1978 when I was tested, and re-tested by the United States Marine Corps. I have probably slipped a couple of points since then, but I would be willing to take my chances in a debate with you, on any subject. Now, would you answer my question on what the politically correct term of the day is for a man who has been with a woman and a man? 

          • Anonymous

            “Maybe it is just because I am on the opposite side of an issue from you
            that is skewing your ability to judge my intelligence level.” – No, it’s because you are demonstrating that you don’t understand the concept of sexual orientation.

            “My I.Q. was estimated to be 150 back in 1978 when I was tested, and re-tested by the United States Marine Corps” – I don’t care.  Your I.Q. certainly isn’t helping you understand sexual orientation.

            “I have probably slipped a couple of points since then, but I would be
            willing to take my chances in a debate with you, on any subject. ” – Ooo, so scary.  From all the bragging you are doing about how smart you supposedly are, it seems to me that you are compensating for something…

            “Now, would you answer my question on what the politically correct term
            of the day is for a man who has been with a woman and a man? ” – It depends on how they identify themselves.  You don’t get to determine someone else’s sexual orientation.  The fact that you are reducing the complex topic of sexual orientation into who you are currently having sex with shows that you don’t understand sexual orientation. 

          • Anonymous

            Yes, I have spent my whole life “compensating”. I am a 52 year old grandfather. Just how do you suppose that I would know the proper term for someone’s “complex sexual orientation” this week. Maybe I am just ambivalent in the matter and I see no need to waste a lot of time contemplating it. We already voted on this anyway. But, because the LGBT community, see, I am not completely ignorant about the terminology, refuses to take no for an answer, we have to endure another round of SSM. Thereby distracting from far more important issues concerning the other 98% of us, like the economy.  

          • Anonymous

            If it’s so annoying to you, then vote yes, because I can guarantee that we won’t stop until it passes.

            “Just how do you suppose that I would know the proper term for someone’s “complex sexual orientation” this week. ” – I don’t know, maybe actually take the time to ask the person instead of making assumptions about them?  But based on your comments, it seems like you won’t do that.  You don’t want anyone changing your little version of reality.  Learning something might get in the way.

            “We already voted on this anyway. ” – A lot can change in three years.

            “Thereby distracting from far more important issues concerning the other 98% of us, like the economy. ” – Most people have the attention span to focus on multiple things at a time.

          • Anonymous

            I do not know any LGBT people to ask. A lot can change in 3 years? A lot can stay the same for 5,000 years as well. Like marriage being between a man and a woman. Most people have the attention span to focus on multiple things at a time? You obviously haven’t been to WalMart  or McDonald’s lately. 

          • Anonymous

            “I do not know any LGBT people to ask.” – Gee, I wonder why?  Must be something to do with your WONDERFUL personality (sarcasm)

            “A lot can stay the same for 5,000 years as well. Like marriage being between a man and a woman.” – Except for, you know, when it wasn’t.

          • Anonymous

            I have to go hand out candy to the kids. I’ll let you have the last word. I sense that it means everything to you. See you at the polls, again. 

      • notateapartier

        Chris probably knows whether he is gay, straight or bisexual. I can imagine that it is difficult to “come out” as a gay person, and many choose to go the straight route, and marry someone of the opposite sex. Works for some, I guess, but I can also imagine that this way of life is an unhappy one for all involved.

  • How many mass murders were raised by same sex couples? I’ve never heard of any.

  • Anonymous

     When this law passes with my vote to help it along,I will be happy for you and yours,ChuckGG,RegularJoe and the many,many others whose lives will be forever improved.

    • Anonymous

      What a nice sentiment!  Can I jump on your bandwagon as we may not get a chance to congratulate everyone after.  I hope you all live happily ever after! 

      • Anonymous

         No problem at all.Unlike the other side,my bandwagon has plenty of room for all who want fairness.

  • Bangor

     Happy to vote YES on 1. Everyone deserves the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This is a civil issue since the government issues marriage licenses. The government of this country is not supposed to discriminate against anyone…everyone deserves the same rights, no matter what your race, religious background, or sexual orientation happens to be. And if you want to bring religion into this argument, which it should not be in the first place since this is a state issue, and church is supposed to be separate from state, as per the constitution, most religions teach love and that everyone is a child of god. Just because there are a few lines in the bible that state that homosexuality is wrong, are there not a few lines in the bible that state that slavery is perfectly fine? That having more than one wife is fine? That rape is fine? You can selectively read the bible all you want, but you’re being hypocritical by not believing in EVERYTHING it says. And people are realizing this as dictated by the massive decline in the catholic population over the last 15 years. Catholicism is a dying religion…I live in Biddeford, and the number of empty, closed up former catholic churches speaks to this. It’s time to wake up, people deserve equal rights no matter what your religious book, the book that you are picking and choosing lines from, says!

    And homosexuality is not a moral issue. Science has basically confirmed in a number of studies that sexuality is the result of a variety of factors that are determined in-utero, prior to birth! How can you ever fault someone for being someone who they were born to be? Once again, if you play the religious card, you are being a hypocrite as your religion supports birthing all babies despite illness, deformity, and lifestyle, and to love these babies no matter what…not that I am advocating abortion. Your religion teaches love, but it teaches hate at the same time. How can you fault someone for being born with a sexuality that they have no control over? For desires that are outside of their stream of consciousness? All they want is love, and to find love, just like any heterosexual individual wants. And the claim that homosexuality is “unnatural” has also been disbanded by a number of scientific studies. Homosexual behavior has been observed across species, from insects to our closest mammalian relatives…but yet this is all a conscious choice made within an individual’s mind? Something you choose? So these animals, which don’t have the ability to make intelligent choices, have the ability to consciously sit down, and choose their sexuality? So you might say this just supports that homosexuality is an illness, but does it? Can we control it with drugs like other mental illnesses? Can we fix it? Is there a decisive genetic mutation or life event that causes homosexuality? NO THERE IS NOT! Homosexuality is a form of sexuality, and research supports the idea that it functions much more like a spectrum than anything else…so you might be bisexual! You just might not realize it because society implies that being different is wrong and you must fit into one mold or the other. But the truth is, most people do not fit under one title or the other, we just are conditioned to force ourselves into one group or the other.

    Acceptance is key to human survival. We all have the need to be accepted into our community and into society. Teen suicide amongst homosexual teens is dramatically higher than those within the heterosexual community. As is destructive behaviors like smoking and alcohol use. Why? Well obviously bullying by peers is a factor that needs to be addressed, but another is lack of outlook for a promising future. Homosexual teens can’t look forward to the same future as their “straight” peers. They won’t be able to marry, have a wedding, and start a “family” like their friends. They won’t be able to have the same recognition and societal benefits as their friends. They are looking forward to a life as a second class citizen, nothing any American should have to look forward to. It’s proven that homosexual teens have trouble seeing their future beyond their twenties and thirties…its no reason why, society represses them. It’s time to level the playing field, it’s time to give everyone equal rights, if not for your neighbor, than for your neighbors kids. Maine is a relatively small blip on the map, but we have the opportunity to give everyone the rights entitled to them by the constitution, and it starts and ends with us, the voters!
    I’m a believer in equal rights, I support humanity, and I am voting Yes on 1 this November, I hope that you will be able to join me!

  • Anonymous

    The sad part is,there’s a fringe of these nuts who think they’re smarter than Jefferson et al.
    Look up the tenthers,etc.Truly scary!

    • i see ..you do not like the tenth amendment? any others?

      • Tedlick Badkey

        Interesting that you abandoned the discussion on the fact that only 2 of your 10 commandments are crimes under Maine (and US) civil law.

        It’s a solid demonstration on the importance of your religion in our civil law.

      • Anonymous

        And you argument against the 14th Amendment would be?

      • Anonymous

        So slavery should still be legal if you are going to base your total argument on the 1oth Amendment Keith?

  • Anonymous

     It might help him to invest in a dictionary so he could learn the difference between “cite” and “site” as well.That’s not the only books he needs.

  • Anonymous

    well only 2 of the ten commandments are actually against the law. 

    • really..which ones

      • Anonymous

        1. You shall have no other gods before me – Legal to do
        2. You shall not make for yourself an idol – Legal to do
        3. You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God – Legal to do
        4.  Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy – Legal to work on Sunday
        5. Honor your father and your mother – Legal to disobey your parents
        6. You shall not murder – Illegal
        7. You shall not commit adultery – Legal to do
        8. You shall not steal – Illegal
        9. You shall not lie – Only illegal under oath, legal otherwise
        10. You shall not covet – Legal to do

        So, it’s actually about 2.5 / 10 are actually illegal.

        • Tedlick Badkey

          He will argue that they’re all against “gods law” so your argument, and mine, are invalid.

          Watch and see.

      • Tedlick Badkey

        You again? LOL!!! Still waiting for you to show us your god in our constitution.

        Murder… theft.

        None of the others are a crime in every instance… most are not crimes at all.

        You can have any god you want.
        You can worship any idol you want.
        You can take the name of the lord any time you wish.
        You can do whatever you want on the Sabbath (which most “christians” get wrong anyway).
        You can dishonor your father and mother any time you please.
        Murder, as stated above, is a crime.
        Swinging is a fine example of adultery that is perfectly legal.
        Stealing (theft), as stated above, is a crime.
        Lying is not a crime far more often than cases where it can be (such as under oath).
        You can covet anything you want to.

        These are the facts of US civil law… and how unnecessary your mythology is.

  • Anonymous

    I agree wholeheartedly.

    Disclaimer:  I’m a happily married (for decades) hetero senior citizen and a moderate Christian.

  • Anonymous

    Outdated data.  AIDS is just as prevalent in the hetero community.  Your alleged research findings on the gender makeup of families is flawed.

  • Anonymous

    Civil unions, if available (and thew aren’t universally), don’t cut it.  Sure SSM couples are dependent on hetero couples (or birth parents) since after all, that’s where all of us, including LGBT, come from.  Duh.

  • Tedlick Badkey

    Thanks BDN!!!

    • So you support bangor daily news supporting this and writing about it?

      • Tedlick Badkey

        I support them by buying subscriptions to their paper.

        I agree with their stance and appreciate their support in pushing for equitable treatment for all law-abiding, tax-paying citizens.

      • Anonymous

        That’s what newspapers do….take editorial positions on questions of the day.

  • Anonymous

    Wow unbelievable the bdn supports a liberal progressive agenda, will wonders ever cease.ahahahahhahaaaaaaa man I am funny.

    • Anonymous

      Party for one?

      • Anonymous

        huh?

  • Point One not one person that is voting no on 1 has said or complained about bangor daily news once writing an article here which clearly points out BDN’s view on question 1! Unlike everyone has done to places of business such as treworgy who had a no on 1 sign on their front lawn. The funny part of that is most of you supporters don’t realize the last either 2 or 3 weeks of campainging before election is fair game and the property on the edge of the road you don’t actually own and is fair game. So whether you agree with a candidate or a said topic if the sign lands on your lawn you can’t take it down period. 2nd I am tired of hearing the complaining of the tax benefits the only benefit will be at state level as the federal government doesn’t recognize gay marriage and are not governed by state law. 3rd if you are that upset over not being able to sit with you partner when they are in the hospital they have this thing called a power of attorney and in that power of attorney they can put you in charge and at their bedside so what else you got?  I still to this second have not made up my mind on how I am going to vote however I will say the supporters who keep lashing out at everyone who don’t agree with them and boycotting business that don’t agree with them are making it easier and easier to vote against them in this matter.

    • Anonymous

      This is an editorial, not a news article.

      I won’t get into the whole political sign debacle— I think it is wrong for anyone to tear up a political sign you disagree with, and I thought the whole issue with the family farm having a ‘no on 1’ sign was blown out of proportion on Facebook (honestly, facebook has really become tiresome with everyone spouting their political opinions this election).

      As for the federal government’s recognition of civil marriage— the US Supreme Court is expected to take up this issue soon after the election, and even those opposed to same-sex marriage admit that the “Defense of Marriage Act” is an unconstitutional imposition on state rights to regulate marriage (we don’t even regulate age-of-consent for civil marriage nationally!) — in other words, DOMA is soon to be struck down, and states that offer civil marriage to same-sex couples will be better able to treat their citizens equally under the law as a result.

      I do hope you can see that treating Maine families equally is a good thing. Same sex couples have been building lives together and raising families for decades, and civil marriage offers important protections that cannot be reproduced any other way.

    • Anonymous

       Do married get power of attorney if not then thats discrimination

    • Anonymous

      A POA has limits.  Please do some research before commenting. Thank you.

  • Same sex marriage is not an equal rights issue, it is a human rights issue. Homosexuality is biological, they are born that way, it cannot be detected with an xray, MRI, EKG, blood test or any  other such medical procedure. No one choses to be gay or lesbian, they are born that way. Doesn’t matter anyone’s sexual orientation, we all bleed when we are cut, we all have feelings, we all have beating hearts and the majority are capable of intelligent thought processes. I have voted YES on 1 because it is time to right one of the last remaining wrongs.

    Traditional marriage arguments don’t have a leg to stand on. A traditional marriage was a business transaction, a father sold his daughter for a dowry, often to a man she had never met with no consideration to the character of the man and 7 days of drunken debauchery followed. How about we put that on the ballot? Everyone of the No on 1 people would vote against that referendum question.

    The idiocacy of being able to marry your dog next is just that, an idea thought up by a bunch of idiots. Marriage is between two consent adults, A dog or any other animal is unable to consent to anything, just like children cannot enter into a legally binding agreement because they do not have the mental capacity to understand what they are agreeing to.

    I am willing to bet that every church has gays and lesbians in their congregations. Some churches are accepting of this and there is no need to hide one’s sexuality. Other’s are completely unforgiving and its members can’t be open and honest about themselves. Would you want to pretend to be something you are not so that you aren’t condemed by people who think you are fine otherwise?

    The bible is outdated, incest was ok according to it, would you want that legalized?

    Same sex marriage was legal until 342BC when it was outlawed in the Roman Empire by a Christian Roman Emperor. Gee, I think that shows us why religion shouldn’t be used to make laws, religions discriminate. Wars have been fought for hundreds of years over religion, eliminate the religions and there goes several reasons to engage in war.

    Thankful every generation is more tolerant of those that are different so if it doesn’t pass this time, it will in the not too distant future. If all the 20 somethings that accept people for who they are rather than judge based on differences get out and vote, this referendum will pass.

    • Anonymous

      I agree with the premise that “The Gays” are born this way. I would compare it to a birth defect. The fact that they cannot reproduce is proof enough of their imperfection just as a man who is sterile or a woman is infertile. Not a choice but a birth defect. 

      • seththayer

        Listen sweetheart, I can procreate just fine thank you…I chose not to do so for personal reasons.  Glad that you can be so dismissive to a group of American citizens…however, we will prevail and you can go back to your barcalounger and stew in it for the rest of your days.

        • Anonymous

          Remote in hand……..

      • Anonymous

        A defect?  They are human beings.  So those born with down’s syndrome or mental retardation are defected and do not deserve that same as you and me?  I have a stepdaughter born with a genetic mutation.  Is she “less” or “less deserving that me”.  NO.  She is a human being who deserves the same rights that I have.  You claiming that gays et al are defective is asinine.  They are the same as anyone else.  They are your fellow citizens.  What are you afraid of?

  • marriage is not a law..soooooo.no.constitutional backing on that one…next

    • Anonymous

      So all those laws related to marriage just don’t exist?  Is that what you are trying to say?

      • it shouldn’t..the government should not be in the marriage business .its not in the constitution !

        • Anonymous

          Well then, get to work repealing all of the marriage laws.  Good luck with that…

        • Tedlick Badkey

          But the government IS in the marriage business hotshot… are you willing to give up all benefits and protections of marriage between you and your spouse?

          Interesting that you abandoned the discussion on the fact that only 2 of your 10 commandments are crimes under Maine (and US) civil law.

          It’s a solid demonstration on the importance of your religion in our civil law.

        • Anonymous

          And you will not find the following items in the Constitution either but the government sees fit to regulate or limit it:

          Alcohol
          Tobacco
          Building codes
          Over time
          Speed limits

          Are you seriously making the argument that if it cannot be found in the Constitution the government cannot regulate or limit it?

    • Anonymous

      Civil marriage is a legal license granted by our government. There are over 1,100 benefits and privileges extended by our government on the basis of marital status, and civil marriage is the requirement for that status.

      In previous cases it has been determined that the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause includes equal protection in how our government grants the rights of civil marriage. So yes, there is indeed constitutional backing for this argument.

      All of this can be a moot point, however, if most Mainers will do the right thing and vote YES on question 1 in November, because allowing ALL Maine families the opportunity to protect the lives they build together with civil marriage is the right thing to do.

      • drivers license…law!? or a privilege ? huh..i was right!

        • Anonymous

          You don’t read very well, do you? Or do you just scan until you find one phrase to latch onto, and then ignore the rest?

    • Tedlick Badkey

      Wrong… anything that requires a license from the state is covered under civil law.

      What would you call it?

      PS:  Interesting that you abandoned the discussion on the fact that only 2 of your 10 commandments are crimes under Maine (and US) civil law.

      It’s a solid demonstration on the importance of your religion in our civil law.

      • which commandments? come on teddy..impress me with your wealth if knowledge.ever read the constitution?

        • Tedlick Badkey

          Still can’t approach either, can you?

          We’ve identified for you already how most of your 10 commandments are perfectly legal when you asked us to.
          I’m asking you to show me your religion in our constitution. You keep running from it.
          Why is that?

      • drivers license..is that a law too? i guess that thought did not work out did it?

        • Tedlick Badkey

          Yes there are laws that govern drivers' licenses.

          What is your point?

  • Anonymous

    Civil unions are not recognized under current tax laws which does not allow gay couples to raise their children – yes, they do raise children – in a manner that allows the children to be covered under either parent’s healthcare plans or allow these couples to file a joint tax return with standard deductions for their children.  While it is completely understood that marriage is viewed by many as a religious ceremony, the truth is that it is not always performed by clergy – sometimes the marriage ceremony is performed by a notary public, judge, ship captain, higher ranking military officials or other individuals licensed to perform a ceremony of marriage.  And, as the article points out, churches do not issue marriage certificates… they simply perform a religious ceremony IF asked to do so. However, this church or religious ceremony does not determine whether or not the couple is considered to be married.  In fact it has nothing to do with it at all. Not all marriages involve a religious ceremony so this should not be a decision made solely based upon religious beliefs.

    • Anonymous

       Very well  said

  • Anonymous

     Remember either a car company or a tobacco company got 80 BILLION in punitive damages some years back.It was later overturned.

  • Anonymous

     There isn’t one.In particular the CC situation has been exhaustively documented as to how and when they went out of the adoption business.The antis have tried their best to hang that on the SSM thing and that dog just will not hunt.

  • Anonymous

     You shouldn’t be surprised about that crowd being uneducated.When their goddess is Sarah Palin,nothing good is safe.And a TP D is a particularly virulent American cancer.Kind of like Ben Nelson.That allows the bipartisanship card to get mixed in to the hate.

  • wwith the thought here..if ssm fans want it and want every state ti recognize….when are they going to recognize concealed carry nationally ?hmmm?

    • Anonymous

      How are those even related?  If you want that, campaign for it.  Condealed carry has nothing to do with same sex marriage.

      • well marriage is recognized in all states….right? even though its not a law”marriage”..so..

        • Anonymous

          …so, what?

        • Anonymous

          Ah Keith….look to Loving v. Virginia for your answer.

    • Anonymous

      Wrong discussion board buddy

    • Tedlick Badkey

      I’m all for it sweetie.

      Where do I sign?

      PS: Interesting that you abandoned the discussion on the fact that only 2 of your 10 commandments are crimes under Maine (and US) civil law.

      It’s a solid demonstration on the importance of your religion in our civil law.

    • Anonymous

      National Concealed Carry??? Where do I sign on?

    • seththayer

      Of course, we should have a right to bear arms, but there should be a test…one which you might not be able to pass….cause gods forbid if you had access to a semi-automatic weapon….we would all be doomed

  • Anonymous

    Nowhere in our nation is there civil unions equal to civil marriage.

    This is about being treated equally under our laws, and about offering ALL Maine families the opportunity to protect the lives they build together— and the children they raise together— with civil marriage.

    I have voted YES on question 1, and I hope most Mainers join me this year in becoming one of the first states to extend marriage equality by popular vote!

  • Anonymous

     Then work to fix the laws that are against single people.I will absolutely agree that single and childless people like my brother get screwed mightily by the current laws while irresponsible breeders can’t get enough handed to them either in huge tax breaks or freebies.People like the Duggars and the Octomom are the true ruination of the US and the planet.Marriage is a double money grab for churches and states so it won’t go away.I hope you will reconsider and I wish you luck and peace.

    • Anonymous

       The catholic  church does not want gay marriage so they will not make money off from gay marriage

      • Anonymous

         They have far too much cash now.Tax them out of existence and put those nice properties back on the tax rolls.Budget problem solved.Busybodies gone.Maine wins twice!

  • Anonymous

    BS!

    • Tedlick Badkey

      How so?

  • Anonymous

     Since the BSA came out as anti gay and now the news comes out that pedos were there for decades.Just like the CC-a corrupt bunch of old men running things.My nieces and nephews are a hell of a lot safer with a gay couple than in any Big Religion or the BSA.

  • Yes, that would be nice for the state of Maine to allow Same-sex marriage. And we the states of Vermont, and New Hampshire wants the state of Maine to allow Same-sex marriage more than other things the most.

    • Anonymous

      Maine is differant and I hope it stays that way.

      • Anonymous

        Maine has a long history of supporting equality ahead of the nation— we legalized interracial marriage a century before our Supreme Court did, and we granted women the right to vote ahead of the nation too.

        So yes, Maine is different, and I hope this November we can uphold our tradition of extending equality, and be the first state in our nation to grant civil marriage to same-sex couples by popular vote!

      • Anonymous

        By different you mean bigoted. 

  • Anonymous

     Trust me,you were never asked in.It’s just that conservatives can’t keep their blue noses out of other people’s business.
    “A conservative is one who is fixed on the idea that someone somewhere is having fun”

    • Anonymous

      Always think that they’re getting the short end of the stick too. 

      • Anonymous

         There isn’t anyone on the Earth that’s a bigger bunch of crybabies than that gang.They’ve had it made for centuries and can’t stand to share even a tiny slice of the pie.

    • well stop putting “your” business out there…duh!

      • Tedlick Badkey

        Where’s that religion in the constitution little boy?

        We’re waiting…

        • our founding fathers…in almost every written paper. were religious .

          • Anonymous

            Care to prove your earlier point that “our constitution was based on religion”?

          • seththayer

            Oh my, not too much of a history scholar are you?

          • Tedlick Badkey

            Who cares? That is not our law.

            Show it to us in our constitution.

            Can't do it, can you?

  • Anonymous

    You lament sexually transmitted diseases, but then you also discourage monogamy — you realize that makes absolutely no sense, right?

  • Anonymous

    WHO CARES what the BDN thinks?  WHY does the editor think that this is news?  Good grief.

    • Anonymous

      The are throwing support behind “The Gays” because it sells papers. Imagine the marriage listings on Saturdays….. with a picture of two guys kissing and cuddling under an oak tree….cute

      • Anonymous

        I’m throwing my support behind “The Constitution” because of my American values. Imagine our Constitution fulfilling its promise to all Americans! Amazing.

      • Anonymous

         The Navy let the ladies kiss she was the first one off the ship  .

      • seththayer

        Have you ever read the New York Times wedding announcements?  They have had same sex couples in there for years!  

        Time to get with the times Green

        • Anonymous

          My point exactly. New York Times offends me and I am a city guy. Im ok with Gays, just not ok with gays getting married. 

          • seththayer

            thank you kind person…it does my heart good knowing that you are “ok” with me.  

          • Anonymous

            never said I am ok with you. I am ok with gays, you may be a mean jerk…..hope not for your boyfriends sake

          • seththayer

            Land a goshen!  He is ok with the gays!!  Really….do you understand how completely feble you sound?

      • Anonymous

        We get it that you are uncomfortable with two men and PDAs.  That’s an honest reaction.   Personally, I get the willies when I think of 80 yr old men and women doin’ it.

    • Anonymous

      You cared enough to comment.

    • seththayer

      so stop reading about it and it won’t affect you or your blood pressure.

      • stop putting your business out there…just sayin’

        • Anonymous

          OMG so preventing SSM will stop people from “putting” their business out there? I didn’t know that preventing SSM would prevent people from holding hands, hugging and kissing in public.

        • seththayer

          about what business are you speaking?  Do you actually know any of my business besides the fact that neither I nor my partner, as tax paying American citizens have the right to marry each other?  It’s called un-equal treatment under the law and is unconstitutional.

  • Anonymous

    Adoption is a very good way to build a family I support it. Gay marriage for what? I got married because I wanted to have children, my children for my family. I don’t see that happening anytime soon in a gay marriage so whats the point. God created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.

    • Anonymous

      Nope, even by the bible you quote god created BOTH sets of couples.  

      • read it again

        • Anonymous

          So your god is not all-powerful, and not responsible for all of creation?

          • slapping my forehead! you do not get it…should i type slower?

          • Anonymous

            You should put more thought into what you are saying, yes.

      • Anonymous

        never quoted the bible

        • Anonymous

          said adam and eve, where is that from?

    • Anonymous

      Pst, same sex couples can adopt.  We have plenty of unwanted children to place in loving homes.  You can’t blame the gays for that one.

      God created Adam and Eve, to propagate the world through incest, not Adam and Steve, to propagate the world through incest.

    • Anonymous

      Same-sex couples across Maine are raising children day in, day out. Those families deserve the important protections of civil marriage, too.

      God created all of us, Adam and Eve as well as Adam and Steve.

    • Anonymous

       God made gay animals so he made gay people

      • Anonymous

        Gay animals? Where?

        • Anonymous

           People say GOD made atom an eve so god made animals

          • kinda goes against that evolution thing you all like doesn’t it? tell me..what was Darwins thoughts on this subject?!

          • Anonymous

            I don’t know u do a search an find out

    • seththayer

      you picked your wife for her good breeding stock? You got married to have children…does your wife know that you didn’t get married because you loved her and found a life partner in her…but simply so she could pop out your puppies?  

      Interesting.

      • Anonymous

        Did someone say puppies?

    • Anonymous

      Can you point to the section on the Marriage License issued by the State of Maine that says “marriage is for procreation purposes”?

      • Anonymous

        boy your preety cleaver man and a woman is marriage the rest is sick

        • Anonymous

          What is a “preety cleaver”?

          Did you mean “pretty clever”?

          I am beginning to think that prior to the issuing of a marriage license one should be required to take a reading and spelling test.

          • Anonymous

            tifosi  has some weird butcher fetish.  He or she was actually talking about “preety cleavers”.

          • Anonymous

            Dyslexic…

          • Anonymous

            Interesting….you had no problem working for a company (Apple) that supports gay rights, extends benefits to same sex couples and supports same sex marriage but you have no problem denying that which the company you sold software for supports. Isn’t that the textbook definition of hypocrisy?

          • Anonymous

            I doubt he’s telling the truth.

  • Anonymous

    Lets just get this “gay marriage” thing passed so I can marry my dog during the next referendum cycle. What Lassie and I have is real love, never a divorce and even though we cant have children, we need to be treated as a normal couple, and if you don’t show support for our relationship you will be called a hater…..peace be with you.

    • Anonymous

      I’m shocked that not only do you have a dog with the mental capacity to consent, but that you are able to verbally communicate with your dog.  Unless of course, you can’t do any of that, then it would probably be best for you to just assume that “woof’ means no, Bubba.

    • Anonymous

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

      • Anonymous

        You gays are so intolerant, you call my love for my dog “Bestiality” where I call it love…. You of all people should understand our plight as you have suffered from the same oppression for years….. 

        • seththayer

          except your dog is an unwilling partner. He cannot give his consent and you know it!

          • that’s not true..i have met them ! are there any ssm that are deaf/mute?

          • Anonymous

            Ahh yes the “dog”, “apple pie”, “car tail pipe”, etc…argument.

            When did your “Lassie”

            1) Have conscious thought?
            2) Grant informed consent on a contractual agreement?
            3) Read and understand the contract? and
            4) Make her mark by signing her legal name with any of her four paws?

          • Anonymous

            You do realize that deaf people not only possess the ability to consent, they also have the ability to communicate, right?  Have you never heard of sign language?

          • seththayer

            Oh my, you are one of the stupidest people I have ever had the misfortune to come across.  I am sorry that you and I live in the same area.

          • Anonymous

            That is just legal speak. Lassie gives me looks and we have a bond beyond that of straight or gay people. Stop being so intollerant, you want hetros to be tolerant of your views. Unless you have shared love with a dog you wont understand….Human -Dog marriage Vote yes on ballot question Woof!

          • Anonymous

            You call your sister a dog?  That doesn’t seem very nice…

          • Anonymous

            This is ALL about “legal speak”— civil marriage.

        • Tedlick Badkey

          Then be glad there are many states where your relation with your dog is legal… 

          But the dog can’t sign a legal document, so you still can’t get married no matter how hard you try.

          • same for ssm !

          • Anonymous

            Comparing two consenting adults to bestiality is a very poor argument indeed.

            Can an animal do or have any of the following things which are required to enter a contract”

            1) Have conscious thought?
            2) Grant informed consent on a contractual agreement?
            3) Read and understand the contract? and
            4) Make her mark by signing her legal
            name with any of her four paws?

          • Anonymous

            Bingo!

          • Tedlick Badkey

            Wrong. All law abiding citizens are capable of entering legal contracts where dogs never can.
            Now, where is your demonstration of your religion in our constitution?

          • Anonymous

            No, both partners in a same-sex relationship are perfectly capable of signing a civil marriage license and consenting to the marriage.

            And allowing them to do so is the right thing to do, so that ALL Maine families can protect the lives they have built together.

    • Anonymous

       So now you want to do  bestiality  ?  Is that legal in Maine ?

      • Anonymous

        Not yet but the campaign started today….would you like to support our effort? We only want to be married to be like everyone else, we want our love to be the same as your love and don’t forget the tax implications. We want the same rights as married people. Civil Unions and Domestic Ownership will not do!

        • Anonymous

          When “Lassie” can grant informed consent on a contractual agreement, read and understand the contract and make her mark by signing her legal name with either of her four paws then you can make your case. Until that time you can go back under the bridge where all trolls come from.

          • Anonymous

            Lassie and I have an Oral agreement!

          • Anonymous

            i really enjoy the comments from those with the room temperature IQ’s  –thank goodness for the anonymity of the posts, right cleetus?

    • Anonymous

      And “Lassie” gave informed consent how?

    • Anonymous

       I think that is great! I’m so happy for you and Lassie!

      Now if you can just get Lassie to put that in writing, you can get the ball rolling on that.

      Nice try

  • Anonymous

     You’re against natural law. Aids running rampant in the gay community is like Cancer running wild in the straight community. Please fall down and hit your head and don’t wake up until the stupid closed minded and racist crap your grandparents thought you is gone.

  • Anonymous

      You’re against natural law. Aids running rampant in the gay community is like Cancer running wild in the straight
    community. Please fall down and hit your head and don’t wake up until
    the stupid closed minded and racist crap your grandparents thought you
    is gone.

  • Anonymous

     You’re against natural law. Aids running rampant in the gay community is like Cancer running wild in the straight
    community. Please fall down and hit your head and don’t wake up until
    the stupid closed minded and racist crap your grandparents thought you
    is gone.

    • Thought you? LOL!!! I agree with your message but you might want to correct it to the word taught.

      • Anonymous

         Actually,his usage makes sense in a roundabout way.The racist creeps from generations ago never “taught” anyone anything good.How they “thought”was the poison they sent out into the world.There’s still a great amount of virulent redneck racists out there including too many in ME.

  • Anonymous

    Why do people keep trying to argue if SSM marriage is legalized that churches will have to eventually marry gay couples even if it is against their doctrine.  TO all you catholics out there:
    true or false, the catholic church can REFUSE to marry one man and one woman.  This is an easy test.

  • Anonymous

    The answer: NO!

    • Anonymous

      Why?

      • Anonymous

        Simply put, it is nothing more than an excuse to engage in deviant sexual behavior. Shall I go into graphic detail?

        • Anonymous

          Please!  I could use the details with my own honey tonight.  I think everything you imagine  as deviant sexual behavior has been done between a man and a woman too.

        • Anonymous

          So you have never engaged in sodomy which is defined as  any non-penile/vaginal copulation-like act?

        • Anonymous

          Why do you focus on the sex acts of consenting adults?

          That isn’t what is at issue here at all. Homosexuality is not illegal anywhere in our nation.

          Civil marriage for same-sex couples is the right thing to do— ALL Maine families deserve the opportunity to protect the life they build together.

    • Tedlick Badkey

      What is your rational reason for voting against law-abiding, tax-paying citizens’ treatment under government?

  • 434 Comments, Impressive! 

  • Anonymous

    Well said. Thank you.

  • Anonymous

    While homosexuals, pederasts and others who choose a reprobate life style are to be pitied for the error of their ways, let us not forget that these are the very same individuals who proffer lies and deception to the next generation of children growing up in Maine. For that reason alone, the agenda to destroy the family and force acceptance of unnatural behavior upon the citizenry is all the more to be rebuffed with the strongest and fiercest criticisms. Exposing the lie for all to see will ensure their defeat in one more week!

    • Anonymous

      Your outrageously judgmental distain sure does not sound like pity.

      We are not seeking to destroy anything— we need access to civil marriage to better protect the lives we have built together, and yes the children we raise together.

      No one voting yes on question 1 is seeking to deny marriage to you, nor destroy anyone’s marriage— and treating each other equally under our laws certainly is a deep-set Maine value!

      I have voted YES on question 1, and I hope the majority of Mainers see through the distorted lies and rhetoric spewed by people like Quequeeg— join us in affording equality to ALL Maine families!

      • Anonymous

        call it any thing but marriage and i’ll have no problem with it,civil union,not for nothing all you need is a lawyer to assure your rights. Why should the majority of mainers have to deal with your personal choice to be gay ? and for the excuse that its not a choice,it may not be today for you but there was a day that it was and i hope the people of maine vote it down again.

        • Anonymous

          so who gave you control over the term marriage?

          • Anonymous

            today its the law and you want it changed thats where !!!

          • Anonymous

            sorry laddie, you don’t have any more rights than anyone else

          • Anonymous

            true and gay people dont need anymore right then striaght people DO !!! ever heard of the constition ? bill of rights? if so then gays have the right they need its the acceptance they want

          • Anonymous

            Yep! That is what we are asking for— equal treatment under our laws, and that includes access to civil marriage!

            Thank you for reiterating the need for us to abide by our bill of rights and Constitution, ensuring that ALL Americans have access to civil marriage and the rights it conveys.

        • Anonymous

          Incorrect— there are well over 1,100 benefits and privileges extended by our government contingent on marital status. Many of these things cannot be reproduced in any way outside of civil marriage. Social security and pension benefits are just two examples.

          I have stated MANY times that I would be fine with the ideal of eliminating civil marriage in favor of civil unions for everyone, but so far that has never been an option on the table. The same folks who fund the opposition to same-sex marriage are just as dead-set against civil unions, too.

  • Anonymous

    Same old, same old liberal opinion coming from the BDN editors.

    Mainers SHOULD vote NO on Question 1 to keep marriage between a man and a woman, not homosexual partners.  The standard is the Word of God, and He does not condone the actions of homosexual partners.  He is the Creator of us all, and He did not create a man for Adam–remember?  Her name was Eve, and admittedly, it was her willingness to give in to temptation from satan that has brought us to the sin that pervades our society.

    • Anonymous

      4lifeandfreedom*
      Offer only valid if heterosexual and Christian.

    • Anonymous

      There is nothing sinful or immoral about two people who find in one another a loving, committed relationship that they hope lasts a lifetime. There are many same-sex couples blessed to find such a bond, and our government should absolutely give these families the opportunity to protect the lives they build together with civil marriage.

      The spirit of the Gospel teaches we should love one another, help those less fortunate in our community, and eschew the pursuit of wealth for more spiritual matters. Civil marriage for same-sex couples certainly does not run counter to the spirit of the Gospel.

      I have voted YES on question 1, because my religion teaches we should be kind to one another, and do no harm. Voting to keep civil marriage away from same-sex couples certainly does them harm!

    • Anonymous

      Why is marriage such a big deal for you? YOU CAN still get married to a woman if and when they allow men to marry other men.

    • seththayer

      Nice, use the unmarried and  incestual couplings of Adam and Eve and their children to illustrate your point.  I love when religious people cannot see the incredible ironies in their statements.

    • Tedlick Badkey

      ROFLOL!!!

      Still shilling for invisible sky-daddies folks?

      Good!!! It can’t even be used in favor of your views in court.

      It’s good that you use religion… because it insures that you will lose.

    • Anonymous

       according to the Word of God, it is okay for a father to sell their daughter into slavery and eating shellfish is an abomonation.

      If you are going to use the religion card, you’d do better just saying ‘it’s a sin.’ When you try to explain it, you sound like a crazy person :)

  • human right? nope..you do not have to married..move to NH VT MA. etched you can prance and sing to your hearts content..

    • Tedlick Badkey

      Nah… we’ll do what has always been done. Push to change civil law.

      Both DOMA and Prop 8 hit SCOTUS on November 2oth… we’ll see where it goes after that.

      You asked us to show you how 8 out of 10 of your 10 commandments are not against the law. We did so.

      I asked you to show me your religion in our constitution.

      Why are you running from it? Could it be that you can’t do it?

      • courts do not make.law

        • Anonymous

          Hmmm maybe you should check Loving v. Virginia or Brown v. Board of Education or Miranda v. Arizona or any number of SCOTUS decisions which have become settled law.

        • Tedlick Badkey

          Stay tuned! It'll be 1967 all over again.

          Not making law, enforcing the constitution.

      • if i thought you to be brite. enough to understand..our constitution was based on religion.

        • Anonymous

          Really? Care to expound on you statement?

          • Tedlick Badkey

            He can’t. I’ve asked him repeatedly to show his religion in our constitution.

            He hasn’t, and he can’t.

        • Anonymous

           our government is not.

        • Tedlick Badkey

          You have yet to show religion in our constitution, yet I've demonstrated that 8 out of 10 of your religion's 10 commandments aren't even crimes.
          Seem that you, little man, aren't bright enough to support your own views.
          That's funny.

        • Anonymous

          i bet he is bright enough to spell bright instead of brite

    • Anonymous

      I’m staying right here. I have a wonderful life in Maine with the love of my life, and we know one day we will be able to have a legally recognized civil marriage.

      And I know that your life won’t be harmed by our equal rights one bit.

      I do HOPE you will one day let go of your irrational fear of people you won’t even take the time to know in life.

  • Anonymous

    Sometimes I feel that God sent us gay people to test our compassion, to see if we leave the judgement to Him, or if we feel compelled to take from God what is His:  judgement.  I think  I am doing okay with this part of Christianity (humility and love for my neighbors).  How you doing?

    • Anonymous

      God “sent” us gay people?  How about god “sent” us straight” people?  We are all human beings deserving of compassion and love.  It is that simple.

      • Anonymous

        I’m trying to speak to this guy in his own terms, see?

  • Anonymous

    Where have all the Gay people come from, 10 years ago there were only 5 gays in the whole State.. MTV fashion statement I guess. New fads never last long, most will be switching back soon enough.

  • seththayer

    My partner of 13 years and I both thank you for this endorsement BDN.  Thank you for realizing that we are all human beings and American citizens and as such deserve equal treatment under the law.  

  • Anonymous

    Sorry BDN, you got this one wrong. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Not between two men. Not between two women. Not between and man and his German Shepherd  Not between a woman and her horse. It is between a man and a woman, period. Vote no on 1.

    • Anonymous

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

  • Anonymous

    yeah..mass wedding in unity

  • Anonymous

    well, now that we’ve got this side of the story plastered over the front page, 
    and in the pursuit of equality, will the bdn publish an article with the headlines “maine should not legalize gay marriage”?

    • Anonymous

      Guess you missed the “BDN Endorsement” just above the headline.

    • Anonymous

      The BDN has run editorials against same-sex marriage, many times. This is an editorial statement from the newspaper’s editorial board, not a contributor.

  • Anonymous

    Wasn’t it John who was the apostle Jesus loved?

    • in a brotherly way..get your simple mind out of the gutter!

      • Anonymous

        You are the one who presumed I meant a sexual relationship.  Nowhere did I say that.  Get your christian mind out of your pants.  

        • oh your bigotry…huh…and you want respect..huh.wow..your anti Christian !

          • Anonymous

            nope, he just pointed out that christians seem to worry more about everyone else’s sex life instead of their own,or lack of it

      • Tedlick Badkey

        Jesus was gay… He loved the peter.

    • maineiac123

       I don’t know about Jesus and John but I have no doubt at all about Jonathan and David.  After reading that story, anyone with an open mind has to come to the conclusion they are gay or at least bisexual.   And loved by god.

  • coming from a liberal rag..not much of a endorsement ! no shocked here!

  • Old Bear

    Never Never Never Means Never!!!!!!

    • Tedlick Badkey

      What will you do when the courts say otherwise?

    • Anonymous

      I will never stop fighting for what our Constitution promises, which is to be treated equally under our laws by our government.

      • Old Bear

        Well you do that.

  • Anonymous

    Is Homophobia Associated With Homosexual Arousal?                
    This relates to a verrry interesting study done at the University of Alabama, that shows that the stronger a man scores in terms of homophobic attitudes/behaviors, the more sexually aroused he is by gay pornography… Who knew??                         
    https://my.psychologytoday.com/files/u47/Henry_et_al.pdf

  • Anonymous

    what’s next? allowing brother and sister marrying?
    They’re human too and should be able to marry whoever they want.
    marriage equality for all.

    • Anonymous

       Brothers and sisters getting married would likely lead to disabled offspring, making it appropriate  for it to be illegal.

      Gay couples can not pro-create. They pose no physical threat to offspring, making it appropriate for it to be legal.

    • Anonymous

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

  • Anonymous

     So it’s all about the sex act? You claim homosexuals will always be dependent on heterosexual? You have a dirty mind if you all worry about who is who somebody might have sex with.

    Also, how about the couples who can’t or don’t want to have children. These people, in your twisted logic, will  “never achieve such power”. You really think that is “power”? For a man to lay with a woman doing something that comes natural to them is not power. For you to think that sex equals power is the mind of a rapist.

  • Anonymous

    Ike would not be allowed anywhere near today’s wild-eyed radical TeaPubliCON Party.  He would be run out of it on a rail with RINO branded to his forehead.  Same can be said of Lincoln, TR, Chase Smith, Rockefeller, and Cohen.  The real “conservative” position on this is to allow same-sex marriage because that is all about the very “liberty” “freedom” and “small government”  these people claim to espouse.  But no, it is fine for them to want massive government right there telling people whom they can love, whom they can marry, and on and on.  Today’s TeaPublicans are the most consummate hypocrites imaginable, and Jesus Chris would vomit at the very sight of them.

    • maineiac123

       Please don’t confuse this Republican Party with that of the past.  Somehow these people have stolen the Republican name but they sure don’t represent what Lincoln, et al represented and it’s a shame on them.

  • Anonymous

     Hmmm, and I would think that people capable of intelligent, independent thought would disagree with you.

  • Anonymous

    No Compromise!!! Vote No!!!

    Edited by author.. I’m not sure what an Exit Pole is.

    • Anonymous

       why do you hate gays so much??

      • Anonymous

        I don’t.

        • Anonymous

          Then why are you trying to take away our rights?

    • Anonymous

      what exit polls?

      • Tedlick Badkey

        Just another lie.

    • Anonymous

      People can say out in the public that they are for it but we all know that behind closed doors they are against it. Cant say I blame them.

      • Tedlick Badkey

        No surprise. Lies and hypocrisy run rampant in those against gay marriage.

        • Anonymous

          That is a fact! 

    • Tedlick Badkey

      Meaningless.

      This will end in court.

      • Washington County

        Let it end in court

        • Tedlick Badkey

          Oh… I plan to.

  • notateapartier

    Did you know that both gay and straight people can get AIDS? 
    Did you know that monogamy is something that causes a decrease of AIDS and other STD’s? 

  • Anonymous

    NO GO !!!! I mean vote NO !!!!

    • Tedlick Badkey

      Why?

      • Anonymous

        right,look we have tens of thousands of drinkers who think its ok to drink and not that bad of an idea to drive,you want to hope the hell they dont get it toghter and ask for thier rights,they pay taxes too

        • Tedlick Badkey

          But they also threaten the physical health of others by driving drunk.
          Gay folks getting married threaten no one.

          Bad analogy is bad.

          • Anonymous

            oh i know gays are “wired diffenently” so now we all should be different is that better?

          • Tedlick Badkey

            Lol!

            Really? Is that all you have?

          • Anonymous

            Who does a same-sex couple harm by being treated equally under our laws?

          • Anonymous

            show me where they are any more special then any one else

          • Anonymous

            They aren’t— and we aren’t asking to be treated special. We are asking for the same access to civil marriage our heterosexual friends have.

          • maineiac123

             They aren’t asking for anything special. It’s those opposed to same-sex marriage that are looking for “special rights”. 

        • Anonymous

          supporters of SSM pay taxes and deserve as many rights as you have—-driving is not a right it’s a privilege ,ask any court

  • Anonymous

    Filthy greedy hands?  My, my.  So that is what you are clamoring about. Money. 

  • Anonymous

    Let me ask all of you a question that are for this.  Would you be offended if we held a straight week?

    • Tedlick Badkey

      Nope.

      Why don’t you?

    • Anonymous

      Go for it, but Spring Break has dibs on that I think :)

    • maineiac123

       Be my guest although it would seem most of the year is straight and white week.

  • notateapartier

    I just voted!

    • maineiac123

       I voted a couple of weeks ago.  YES!

  • hey…look here..no here..in the declaration of independence..”we hold these truths ti be self-evident,that all men are created eq..ual,that they see endowed by there Creator with certain inalienable Rights,that among these are Life,Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness …….huh Creator…ininalienable Rights..huh..nope no religion here

    • Anonymous

      Nice try, the Declaration of Independence isn’t where we get our laws.  We get our laws from the Constitution.

      • Tedlick Badkey

        Heshe knows… Heshe’s desperate.

        It’s funny.

      • again..find marriage in the constitution ..point it out..and note the 14th..federalist papers for those of you that have no.idea what any of it means

        • Anonymous

          Marriage is a law.  Laws are covered by the 14th Amendment.  As long as the government is involved in marriage, it is covered by the 14th Amendment.  Just because you lack basic reasoning skills, doesn’t mean that marriage is not protected by the 14th Amendment.

          P.S. The federalist papers are not laws. They are simply editorials.  Citing them is meaningless.

          • I know..but most of this is going over yer head

          • Anonymous

            I see that the only response you can give is a pitiful attempt to insult me.

          • Anonymous

            And I seeing spelling, grammar and punctuation went over  your head too.

        • maineiac123

           I love it when people start quoting the Federalist Papers.  99% of the time they really have no idea what they are talking about because of a lack of understanding of what the Federalist Papers really were or why they were written.

        • Anonymous

          Find indoor plumbing in the Constitution….or building codes…or life safety codes…or minimum mileage for motor vehicles…or motor vehicles for that matter in the Constitution.

    • Tedlick Badkey

      That’s not the constitution… It has no binding civil law within it.

      And which creator? Allah? Vishnu? FSM? Odin?

      If it meant your religion specifically, why not spell it out?

      You got nothin’… And I think you know it.

    • Anonymous

      Sure sounds consistent with allowing same-sex couples the same legal rights to civil marriage as the rest of us!

      • again..marriage is not a law..one does nite have to get married ..now i know that you liberal minds will tell me it is law..but nope..it is not….ya i know the state issues the licence …they also issue driver’s licences..not law..privilege!

        • Anonymous

          Once again, the Supreme Court disagrees.  Until you overturn Loving v. Virginia, marriage is a civil right.

          • oh..but the court is nite suppose to be making law..constitution again!

          • Anonymous

            Not making any law, just interpreting it.  But, if it is unconstitutional like you say, then you shouldn’t have any problem overturning the decision.  Until then, marriage is a right.

          • Anonymous

            Keith “nite”? Really?

        • Anonymous

          It would also be against the 14th Amendment for our government to discriminate against gays and lesbians in offering drivers licenses… so what is your point here?

        • maineiac123

           Actually the USSC has said that there is  right to marry and it is one of our basic rights.  Marriage is not a privilege as you would like to think.  Even if it were then the state has no right to refuse that “privilege” simply because the couple happen to be of the same sex

        • Anonymous

          SCOTUS in Loving v. Virginia (1967) “marriage is a fundamental civil right”.

    • maineiac123

       Well let’s see, for me my creater was my father and mother, for you perhaps a god but regardless we still have “inalienable rights” which are simply nothing more than rights we are born with.  Oh by the way, did you notice the lack of religion in the Constitution? 

    • Anonymous

      Keith you have to understand who the Founding Fathers were writing the Deceleration of Independence to.

  • notateapartier

    So, homosexuals will never achieve power, and haven’t throughout thousands of years of human history?
    Alexander the Great ring a bell?

  • Anonymous

    I’ve never heard a valid argument, either. I would really like to hear one. They all reduce to:

    1. “My religion opposes it.” Well, my religion doesn’t. Since our government is secular, it’s irrelevant, anyway.

    2. “I don’t like it.” Also irrelevant. The fact that you sit up nights obsessing about somebody else’s private sex life is your problem.

    I keep being reminded of Benjamin Franklin’s  acerbic comment about “People, with no business of their own worth minding, must mind everyone else’s.” 

    Same-sex marriage will encourage monogamous relationships. It will benefit children in same-sex partnerships. It will be good for society at large. I see no reason to oppose it.

  • Anonymous

     No civilized ,rational or fact based location,that’s for sure.

  • Anonymous

    I know of 2 notaries that will be advertising that they are pleased and proud to perform SSM when the law passes—–I am trying to convince them not perform marriages for bigots

    • Tedlick Badkey

      Which begs the question.

      If marriage is a religious institution, how do notaries perform such services with no religious trappings? How do atheists we’d with no religious trappings?

      The ignorance behind those who stand against gay marriage based on religion is palpable.

    • Anonymous

      bigots now who’s calling others names ? and why convince someone what they are doing is wrong now thats just what question 1 is suppose to stop.convinceing gays that they are somehow wrong and need not have a closet anymore.

      • Anonymous

        ya know,if your marriage is so pathetic that someone else getting married will impact on it so much ,perhaps you better worry about trying to save your marriage instead of worrying about someone elses..
        and when something like SSM will have no impact on anyone else ,yes, someone that against it is a bigot because there is no rational reason to oppose it–

        BTW- I’m a happily married 60 year old hetero grandfather and SSM will not bother my marriage in the least

  • Anonymous

     HAHA.There are no greater invaders of anyone else’s privacy than the conservatives.If they stayed away from decent people and minded their own business just once,how much better off man(and women)kind would be.

    • Anonymous

      Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.H. L. Mencken

  • Washington County

    BDN we knew last summer you would support SSM. Half your writers have expressed this view for years. You say clergy won’t be effected, but all the individuals with “faith”who has a businesses tied to the wedding industry will have to either quit or go against their faith. So what your really saying is either quit your business or do Gay weddings against a person personal faith. A business person with Faith has four choices if SSM passes. 1. Quit. 2. Refuse. 3. Go against you faith. 4. Be sued. Who’s really being discriminated against?

    • Tedlick Badkey

      What is your rational legal support for your view?

    • Anonymous

      so if you’re a conservative or evangelical and I’m a business and refuse you a service because of that,it’s ok with you? because my conscience  tells me so?

      • Anonymous

        You can’t, because those same laws they decry also protect them for their choice of religion!

    • Anonymous

      Um, that has nothing to do with the question on the ballot this election.

      We settled this issue in 2005, when we added sexual orientation to the same laws which protect you for your choice of religious views.

      And yeah, I remember back then in 2005 there were all sorts of scary stories about the ‘flood of lawsuits’ that would come if we dared to extend anti-discrimination laws to include gays and lesbians.

      But what happened? Not much. No flood of lawsuits, just gays and lesbians being more comfortable that they could not be denied housing, fired from their job, or otherwise discriminated against just for being who they were.

      This will be no different— I sure don’t want to have a wedding planner do work for me when they don’t like me, nor do I want a wedding photographer taking pictures with a grudge against the people who hired them.

      I have voted YES on question 1, because this is about civil marriage, and ALL Maine families deserve the opportunity to protect the lives they build together, and the children they raise together.

    • Peter Dawson

      Discrimination based on sexual orientation is illegal under current Maine law and has been since 2005.  It applies to employment, public accommodation  education, housing and credit 

      It does not apply to churches, so they are free to have to own rules about who can marry (i.e. they can prevent divorced people, or people of other faiths from marrying in their churches).  This will not change. 

      If someone refuses to provide a service to anyone, because of their sexual orientation, they are violating current Maine anti-discrimination law.  Prop 1 will have absolutely no impact on this.

      If you choose to not provide a service to someone because of their sexual orientation then you are the one who is discriminating.  You do not have the right to deny services to anyone just because you perceive yourself as morally superior.  This attitude is very much akin to Southern whites who felt their superiority justified their treatment of blacks as second-class citizens.  If the law says that you cannot discriminate against others, it does not mean that you are being discriminated against.

    • maineiac123

       I assume then that you would be ok if a hotel, restaurant, theater, photographer, art gallery or whatever had signs up saying “No blacks” No Jews” No Catholics” “No Irish” “No Polish” “No Whatever it is I hate at this time”?  That would be ok because that is essentially what you are advocating.  I thought this country and people from Washingtong County were better than that.

    • Anonymous

      Discrimination based on sexual orientation has been illegal in Maine since we voted on the question in 2004.

      If you own a place of public accommodation and refuse to provide a service based on the person sexual orientation you can be sued. That was true yesterday, today, tomorrow and will continue to be true on November 7th regardless of the outcome of Question #1.

  • Anonymous

    Have always voted no .This time I had decided to vote yes untill the yes on 1 crowd changed my mind . I will continue to vote no.

    • Tedlick Badkey

      Rational legal support for such a view?

  • Anonymous

     Darn, you got to that one first.There are so many errors from him I can’t keep up.

  • Anonymous

     You’re assuming it has either one.And Lassie’s out of there as soon as the can opener breaks.

  • Anonymous

     Thanks.That was the quote I was trying to find earlier.

  • Anonymous

    WOW! BDN endorsing same sex marriage! Who would have ever guessed!

  • R. Kenneth Lindell

    I see no good reason not to extend the State’s issuance of marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples. I do see a very good reason for the State to stop issuing marriage licenses altogether – as was the case prior to 1923.

    • Tedlick Badkey

      I agree, but I have to ask.

      Are you willing to give up all benefits and guarantees to you and your spouse by doing so?

      • R. Kenneth Lindell

        You don’t need a license to be considered married by the government.  Just a voluntary registration would do.

        • Tedlick Badkey

          Actually, that’s not true in many states. Common law marriage, for example, is banned in GA.

          If what you say we’re true, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

          If the government gives protections and guarantees under marriage, they control it.

    • Then you must eliminate the sixteenth amendment as well!….I suspect if that happened…gay unions would go away but holy matrimony would still be here!

      • Anonymous

        What on earth does the amendment establishing income tax have to do with my legitimate petition for civil marriage under our government?

    • maineiac123

       Give me a good reason why for the State to stop issuing marriage licenses.  I have yet to hear one.

  • Anonymous

    Well, it’s good that I don’t care what your particular deity thinks about my relationship.

  • no means no i did not vote for ssm! i know i know…i am a hater ..or a bigot. or maybe i don’t care about gays.or children..hell. throw in vets.and any others you can think of..but..not true..moral compass!

    • Tedlick Badkey

      Couldn’t find it in the constitution, could ya?

      • nor can you..cause its not there!! are drivers licences law?…nope

        • Tedlick Badkey

          Of course the license isn't law. Nor a marriage license.

          But both are issued and manged through law.

        • Anonymous

          “are drivers licences law?…nope”

          Here is an experiment I would like you to try. Place a sign on your car that says…”I don’t have a drivers license. I don’t need one. Drivers licenses aren’t the law” and see how long it takes before you are stopped and questioned about your lack of a drivers license.

  • Gary Libby

    The Supreme Court would save a hell of a lot of time and money if they would just go ahead and declare the state bans unconstitutional.  We’re just gonna keep voting, and voting, and voting…

    • ChuckGG

      Well, possibly not.  SCOTUS is not crazy about the idea of granting civil rights and then repealing those same civil rights.  There has to be a real example of “harm” that would come from not repealing the particular civil right.

      This is part of the Prop-8 argument – CA had granted SSM rights to SS couples and many married during that window of opportunity.  Then, the bible-thumpers got in there and got everyone to vote for Prop-8 to repeal SSM.  Now, after years, the 9th Circuit has deemed Prop-8 unconstitutional.  If SCOTUS agrees to hear the case, I have no doubt they will uphold the lower court’s findings.  If they refuse to hear the case, the 9th’s decision stands and the 39M people in CA will again have access to SSM.

      I think we will see the SSM issue be resolved at a national level soon enough.  We have DADT that is dead (setting a Federal precedent), DOMA on the way out with 2 circuit courts finding against it, and Prop-8 walking its final mile.  Give it some time. 

      • Tedlick Badkey

        The courts take up DOMA and Prop 8 on Nov. 20th.

        • ChuckGG

          I must have missed that in the news.   SCOTUS has agreed to hear the Prop-8 case then?  November 20th makes sense in that it is after the election.

          I am optimistic.  If one reads the Prop-8 transcripts and just the DOMA law, it is pretty obvious how this will shake out.

          • Anonymous

            Not exactly.  They are deciding on whether or not they hear the case Nov. 20th.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            Well, they will announce whether or not to take it up on that date… sorry for the confusion.
            I’m optimistic as well… so far, nothing but “ick factor” and religion have been put forth as arguments against nixing both… and neither is a good ’nuff reason.
            Here’s a link: http://www.salon.com/2012/10/29/scotus_to_consider_doma_prop_8_review_next_month/
            SCOTUS is expected to make its announcement on Nov. 26.

  • ptkitty

    Bill Peters can say whatever he or she wants to say, as long as it meets the guidelines for posting, there is nothing you can do about it.    FTFY.    108 and 223 for you…certainly a person of your great intellect can figure this out.

    • Anonymous

      Is that to me?  
      A. I never said that Bill Peters can’t say what he wants 
      B. You still aren’t using FTFY properly 
      C. I’m not crazy enough to understand what your mystery numbers mean.

  • Anonymous

    Vote NO on 1

    • Tedlick Badkey

      Why? What good will come from doing so?

  • Anonymous

     Only a man and a women should de allowed a marriage licence. It is not discrimination, when a couple don’t qualify. Only a man and a woman can bring children into this world thus creating a family. Even if they can’t have children there is a man & a woman for the child to have the correct understanding of life and what a family is. Gay couples do not qualify! They can not create a child, and should not be adopting young impresssionable children with only one sex. Gay couples just do not qualify.

    • Anonymous

      Should gays and lesbians be forced to abandon their own biological children when they enter into a same sex relationship, too?

      The truth is that civil marriage benefits families both with and without children involved, and there are same-sex families raising children across Maine today. They deserve the opportunity to protect the children they raise together with civil marriage.

      As for “not qualifying” for marriage without having children, that argument is also thoroughly debunked:
      – we do not forbid divorce of parents
      – we do not require a marriage produce children
      – we do not prohibit the infertile from civil marriage

      Even the traditional marriage vows make no mention of children— the vows are about honor and lifelong commitment!

      I have voted YES on question 1, because all Maine families deserve the opportunity to protect the lives they build together.

  • Anonymous

    I somewhat agree with much of what you said, but if tax filing is discriminatory, then it’s discriminatory against single people.  Not gay people.

  • Anonymous

     Only a man and a women should be allowed a marriage license. It is not discrimination, when a couple don’t qualify. Only a man and a woman can bring children into this world thus creating a family. Even if they can’t have children there is a man & a woman for the child to have the correct understanding of life and what a family is. Gay couples do not qualify! They can not create a child, and should not be adopting young impressionable children. Gay couples just do not qualify.

    • ChuckGG

      If civil marriage had anything to do with producing children, you might have an valid argument, but it does not.

    • Anonymous

      Should gays and lesbians be forced to abandon their own biological children when they enter into a same sex relationship, too?

      The truth is that civil marriage benefits families both with and without children involved, and there are same-sex families raising children across Maine today. They deserve the opportunity to protect the children they raise together with civil marriage.

      As for “not qualifying” for marriage without having children, that argument is also thoroughly debunked:

      – we do not forbid divorce of parents
      – we do not require a marriage produce children
      – we do not prohibit the infertile from civil marriage

      Even the traditional marriage vows make no mention of children— the vows are about honor and lifelong commitment!I have voted YES on question 1, because all Maine families deserve the opportunity to protect the lives they build together.

  • Anonymous

     Only a man and a women should be allowed a marriage license. It is not discrimination, when a couple don’t qualify. Only a man and a woman can bring children into this world thus creating a family. Even if they can’t have children there is a man & a woman for the child to have the correct understanding of life and what a family is. Gay couples do not qualify! They can not create a child, and should not be adopting young impressionable children. Gay couples just do not qualify.

    • Anonymous

      Should gays and lesbians be forced to abandon their own biological children when they enter into a same sex relationship, too?

      The truth is that civil marriage benefits families both with and without children involved, and there are same-sex families raising children across Maine today. They deserve the opportunity to protect the children they raise together with civil marriage.

      As for “not qualifying” for marriage without having children, that argument is also thoroughly debunked:

      – we do not forbid divorce of parents
      – we do not require a marriage produce children
      – we do not prohibit the infertile from civil marriage

      Even the traditional marriage vows make no mention of children— the vows are about honor and lifelong commitment!I have voted YES on question 1, because all Maine families deserve the opportunity to protect the lives they build together.

    • Anonymous

      does the rock you live under have indoor plumbing?

    • Tedlick Badkey

      Til you rise up to annul all childless marriages between men and women, you’re a hypocrite.

    • seththayer

      yawn.  So my childless hetero married friends should have to have their marriages annulled?  
      What a stupid and pointless argument.  50% of births happen to unwed people, so under your logic, they should be forced to marry to have children?

  • maineiac123

    Congratulations Bangor Daily News for your endorsement of equality.  

  • Anonymous

    This is complete nonsense!!  Marriage should remain between one man and one woman!  Hopefully Mainers won’t be impacted by the massive spin campaign designed to change the natural and right to that which is unnatural and wrong!

    • Anonymous

      No, I disagree. I believe that we should be treating our Maine families equally under our laws, and civil marriage has real and tangible benefits for families— what reason do you have to deny these couples the opportunity to protect the lives they build together?

      I have voted yes on question 1, and I hope most Mainers will join me in affirming that live and let live is a Maine value worth keeping.

      • Anonymous

        My viewpoint protects the historic view of “marriage” being between one man and one woman, which has been upheld by every major religion and decent society throughout the human experience.  You can’t make a cat a dog, just like you can’t make a car a building, so what right do we as a society have to enable “marriage” to become something it was never intended to become?  Regardless of what we “choose” next Tuesday, I personally will never recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex as legitimate.  I will not refer to a man’s male sexual partner as his husband or spouse, or a lesbian’s female partner as her wife or spouse.  I also will not use the term “significant other” for either my spouse or anyone’s partner.  I don’t feel that we have the right to change that which is normal to that which is aberrant.

        • Anonymous

          The “historic view of “marriage””? So you believe marriage is between one man and multiple wives?

          • Anonymous

            That’s a red herring to this issue.  What society has ever recognized marriage between same-sex couples?

          • seththayer

            It’s not a red herring…your side brings up polygamy all the time……your bible talks about one man and many wives, so what is your problem with that?  Please, before you spout off more, go an research the history of marriage.  Traditional marriage bound young children to each other by their families to consolidate wealth and power.  Traditional marriage was only for noble people in England.  Traditional marriage was only for white people.  Get over yourself.  

          • Anonymous

            It’s not my Bible.  It’s God’s Bible.  The fact that there was polygamy in the Bible does not in any way mean that God approved of it.  In fact, King David paid dearly for his tryst with Bathsheba, as did many others.  The Bible contains much of the history of the Jewish people in the Old Testament–the good, the bad, and the ugly.  Just because something like polygamy is mentioned numerous times does not mean that it was acceptable to God.  Rape is also mentioned in the Bible, but it is still prohibited.  Hopefully you’ll be able to overcome your own anger issues with the idea that many of us will continue to oppose homosexual behavior and marriage, regardless of whether or not Question 1 passes or fails.

          • Anonymous

            Ours, and europe’s, and the early Christian church…

          • Anonymous

            Don’t forget the Native Americans.

          • Anonymous

            “What society has ever recognized marriage between same-sex couples?”

            District of Columbia
            Coquille Indian Tribe
            Suquamish Tribe
            New York
            Massachusetts
            Connecticut
            Iowa
            Vermont
            New Hampshire
            Argentina
            Belgium
            Canada
            Denmark
            Iceland
            Netherlands
            Portugal
            South Africa
            Spain
            Sweden

        • Tedlick Badkey

          So, you’re starting an effort to bring back the dowry? How quaint…

          • Anonymous

            That’s a red herring to this issue.  What society has ever recognized same-sex marriage?  Bringing up other, non-related issues doesn’t change the central argument that should be addressed.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            Nope… It would be “traditional marriage”. You're either for it, or you admit the changes marriage has undergone.
            This latest change is no different to marriage than the others.

          • Anonymous

            God said that homosexuality is wrong. Period.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            Who cares? Your god is not law.

            It's a choice at best.

          • Anonymous

            I don’t care what your particular brand of deity thinks. Period.

          • Anonymous

            Ours, and europe’s, and the early Christian church, to name three.

        • Anonymous

          Protecting this historic view from what? Families and their children who will benefit when their parents can wed? No one voting yes on 1 wishes to take anything away from you, least of all your access to civil marriage or your ability to call your spouse your spouse.
          Can you not see that the arguments you are putting forth here are ripped verbatim from the words of those opposed to racial integration in the 50’s and 60’s?
          When you are using your ideas of “history” and declaring what is “legitimate” to stand against treating fellow Mainers equally under our laws, you’re not really standing up for what’s right, you’re just standing against positive change.
          I have voted yes on question 1, because this is a question about civil marriage and how our government treats us— and all Mainers deserve to be treated equally by our laws.

          • Anonymous

            But it goes against God’s commandments for our lives?  That’s bigger than anything else that we do in this State or country.

          • Anonymous

            It certainly does not go against God’s commandments for our lives. God told us to love one another, and help those less fortunate than ourselves.
            Seriously– God condemns rape and victimization, not love!

        • seththayer

          Stop thinking of couples only in terms of being sex partners.  Why does that matter to you?  Why do you only think of two men having sex when you talk about being gay?  Why does that matter to you?

          • Anonymous

            I’m not the one pushing gay marriage.  Sex is an integral part of marriage.  If two men like each other’s company but are not sexually attracted to each other, then they are just friends–who probably would never consider marrying each other.  These issues matter to me because of my religious beliefs.  I believe that God wants his followers to obey Him and support a society which also respects and follows His commandments.  To overlook these issues, I would be as guilty as if I ignored other acts prohibited by God that society does still agree with.  I am not going to pursue your private acts that you engage in in your own private space, but when you bring your behavior into the public realm, I am bound by conscience to speak out against it.  I would personally prefer not to have these responsibilities, but I am bound by my word to uphold biblical standards both in public and in private.

        • Tedlick Badkey

          your view harms citizens.

          • Anonymous

            Not true.  My view is the one which aligns with both science and religion.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            No, your view shows a desire to harm law-abiding citizens.

    • Anonymous

      for over 4,000 years men have been marring men  an even women did to but not as much .  Do a search on the history of marriage  .

      • The united state is 4000 years old?…Public education strikes again!

        • Tedlick Badkey

          Marriage is older than the US… or your mythology.

          You’re a very narrow minded individual. 

          • Anonymous

            he is also not very smart– public education is better than no education, as you show by your posts

          • Tedlick Badkey

            Why thank you!

        • Anonymous

          Get you glasses on were did i say that the united state was 4,000 years old ? I said for 4,000 years gay men have married . Do a search on the history of marriage an u will see that

          • We are discussing State law not world law!

          • Anonymous

            I gave you facts if you don’t like o well to each there own

      • Anonymous

        God has said it is wrong.  I’m just repeating what He has commanded us to do.  If you study the Bible in an open and honest way, you will come to understand the Truth.

        • Anonymous

          There are lots of things that god says that are wrong but people still do them so if you pick one you half to pick on every thing.

  • Anonymous

    You have, in part, the biased media to blame for not reporting to Maine voters all sides of this most important issue.  We have provided them with materials and they have had ample opportunity to report all sides of this issue.  If you have the courage please visit http://www.Maine4Marriage.org, a non-religious, non-partisan organization that offers credible social science and legal analyses and commentary.   Nationally and internationally respected experts on both sides of this issue agree that there will be conflict and net negative consequences from radically redefining the foundational social institution of man-woman marriage.  Please study our side by side comparison at http://www.maine4marriage.org/m4m/index.php?pages=97 It is irresponsible to listen only to touching stories and ignore the warnings of experts. See our 3 page backgrounder here: http://www.maine4marriage.org/m4m/pdf/BACKGROUNDER_with_links.pdf  And if you really want “sane and logical” please read Monte N. Stewart’s  
    Marriage, Fundamental Premises: http://www.maine4marriage.org/m4m/index.php?pages=58

    • Anonymous

      You don’t really understand what non-partisan means, do you? This website describes itself as “Maine4Marriage is a nonpartisan, nonreligiously-based organization entirely committed to defending the essential social institution of man/woman marriage in Maine.”

      You cannot claim to be nonpartisan and entirely committed to one site of the issue.

      That site is full of straw man attacks on the issue and leaps of logic assuming ‘facts’ not backed up by evidence. Worst of all, it misleads the reader into thinking a vote on question one addresses their stated concerns in any way— it does not! 

      The ‘dangers’ the site warns about arise from the 2005 anti-discrimination law Maine passed. Then too we heard scary stories about a ‘flood of lawsuits’ which would appear if it became illegal to discriminate against gays and lesbians for housing, employment, or business services. And here we are 7 years later, with no such flood of lawsuits to point to.

      For those interested, here are some actual non-partisan government documents, from the General Accounting Office, which spell out the very real legal benefits and privileges that are contingent on marital status. Many of this is unavailable to couples outside of civil marriage:http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf

      http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf
      I have voted YES on question 1, for allowing ALL Maine families the opportunity to protect their lives with civil marriage is the right thing to do.

    • Anonymous

      If Maine4Marriage is “a non-religious, non-partisan organization” why is the very first link on the home page entitled “Religious Freedom Resources”?

    • This is a religious site. Thomas Jefferson said it well: this nation has never been nor ever will be a Christian Nation. Period. There are no proven studies that show any harm has been done by SSM in the places where it has been legal for years. 

  • Anonymous

    Civil rights for homosexuals is a progressive issue. All things in this world evolve, including acceptance, tolerance, and forward thinking.

    There were countless people who opposed civil rights for African Americans in the 1960’s, yet today just about everyone would tell you they support equal rights for all people, regardless of RACE. Our views have evolved on race and now we see that denying people equal rights because they “do not look like us”  is backwards, wrong, and wicked.

    The same thing is going to happen with SSM. Over time, old people will die and young, progressive, forward thinkers who are more tolerant than their predecessors will move in. Back country folks who have only known bigotry and prejudice their whole lives will gradually be brought up to speed as society.

    Someday we are all going to look back at these days and be shocked that denying the rights of homosexuals was ever accepted.

    • Anonymous

       when my daughter was going to umaine in orono the kids from other countries wanted to know what the big deal was on ssm  they have had it for a long time were they come from so it no big deal to them

  • Anonymous

    Where are Collins and Snowe ?

  • Anonymous

    I always cast my vote for the side that has the nicer looking signs. That’s how I roll.

  • Anonymous

    Amazingly, ConvivalVisits,  after a 20 minute perusal of the materials challenges and attempts to discredit commentary and analyses from some of the brightest legal minds and social scientists of our generation.  www.Maine4Marriage.org     When voters are given the facts they have always rejected genderless marriage.  Start here: http://www.maine4marriage.org/m4m/index.php?pages=103

    • Anonymous

      Don’t you find it odd that all these websites set up to defeat SSM and promote “traditional marriage” never mention anything about toughening divorce laws or providing assistance to spouses in abusive relationships.

      • Maine4Marriage.org does quote many legal experts who look to the lessons from history along with data to point out that if we need an example of a social experiment gone wrong we need only look to no fault divorce.  That was an attempt to ease the burden and strain on families especially children. (and it wasn’t nearly as radical as redefining the institution) But we did not see the unintentional negative consequences it would deliver especially for children.  You make a good point.  Marriage is the best and perhaps only institution that protects the bonding rights of children.   We should head in the direction of the ideal for children and not away from it. The five articles here are well worth considering.  http://www.maine4marriage.org/m4m/index.php?pages=61  

        • Anonymous

          These are actually good arguments to offer civil marriage to same-sex couples, so children of those families are better protected.

    • Tedlick Badkey

      Too bad that, in the end, it won’t be a popularity contest.

    • Anonymous

      Oh hey! Maybe you missed my rebuttal, or chose to ignore the valid criticism I raise against your site?

      I’ve been aware of that hack site for quite awhile now, but you are correct that it doesn’t take long to see the flaws in your arguments.

      That website describes itself as “Maine4Marriage is a nonpartisan, nonreligiously-based organization entirely committed to defending the essential social institution of man/woman marriage in Maine.”

      You cannot claim to be nonpartisan and entirely committed to one site of the issue.

      That site is full of straw man attacks on the issue and leaps of logic assuming ‘facts’ not backed up by evidence. Worst of all, it misleads the reader into thinking a vote on question one addresses their stated concerns in any way— it does not! 

      The ‘dangers’ the site warns about arise from the 2005 anti-discrimination law Maine passed. Then too we heard scary stories about a ‘flood of lawsuits’ which would appear if it became illegal to discriminate against gays and lesbians for housing, employment, or business services. And here we are 7 years later, with no such flood of lawsuits to point to.

      For those interested, here are some actual non-partisan government documents, from the General Accounting Office, which spell out the very real legal benefits and privileges that are contingent on marital status. Many of this is unavailable to couples outside of civil marriage:

      http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf

      http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf

      I have voted YES on question 1, for allowing ALL Maine families the opportunity to protect their lives with civil marriage is the right thing to do.

  • Anonymous

    I disagree with the title of this story 100 percent.  The government should have no say whatsoever in our lives. If a guy wants to marry another guy or whatever combination why is it the governments or anybody’s  busniess for that matter! Ladies and gentlemen we need to look at this from the freedom aspect and not the legal. All those proclaiming they support “gay marriage” are against something. Until we as a country get back to the gov being there for a few things instead of them being involved in almost every aspect of our lives this and thing like this will never cease.

    • Anonymous

      Well, there are 1,100+ benefits and privileges extended by our government based on our marital status, so the government very much does have a say in issuing civil marriage licenses.

      But please, enlighten us— what on earth are we against when we show our support for treating Mainers equally under our laws with civil marriage? 

      • Anonymous

        You have entirly missed the point. This should not be a issue at all! the governemnt should have no say in our private lives. Who you marry, where you work, how many kids you have and so on. The fact that there is a LAW made by our government having to do with who we marry is wrong. This is NOT what the gov was built for.

        • Anonymous

          No, I haven’t missed the point at all. You are arguing against having any benefits of civil marriage altogether, for anyone.
          Yes, that would be equality as well, but by comparison same-sex marriage is an easier path to go for the same goal.

  • Anonymous

    Last time I checked, when my wife and I got married we we did not call ourselves a “family” until she gave birth to our first child.
     Gays and lesbians cannot procreate naturally their  relationship, only by adoption or artificial means can children be introduced, unless of course there were children from a previous hetrosexual relationship. So no mater how you cut it homosexuals will always be “seperate but equal”, there is no natural way for them to be completly equal to hetrosexual couples. Nature at work.

    • Anonymous

      so anyone that doesn’t or can’t have children arent a “family”

      • Anonymous

         like if gay marriage than why can’t the guy in Dover marry his dog,  no kids ‘pups’ They aren’t ‘family’ either?  HUH, well? 

        • seththayer

          You know how stupid this comment is, right?  Animals cannot give informed consent to marry.  I can’t believe people are still dumb enough to use this argument.

          • Anonymous

            I think they are most likely just looking for an excuse to have sex with animals.

          • Anonymous

            the tragedy is two fold, 1. he doesnt realize how foolish his comment is and 2. the fixation these anti equal rights people have regarding their pets.. pretty bizarre and does his mother know?

        • It was in Abbot not Dover and he can ask to marry his dog but it didnt happen because the dog cannot consent. 

        • Tedlick Badkey

          Ignorance at it’s finest… you’re sad.

        • Anonymous

           Why you want to marry  them  ?

    • Tedlick Badkey

      So, you want to annul all childless marriages?

      Or just the ones you don’t like?

  • Anonymous

    Who’s next? Polygamists?  That’s a lifestyle, also.

    • Anonymous

      what’s next more comments like this ?

    • Anonymous

       The bible say its ok

      • Where?

        • Anonymous

          perhaps you should read ALL of the bible instead of quoting sections you get from anti equal rights people

    • seththayer

      Gary:  You know being religious is a lifestyle choice, right?  Being gay is not a lifestyle choice, but only a small part of who people are in life.  Personally, I am a human being first, an American citizen next, an art historian, a real estate investor, a friend, a lover, and someone who happens to be gay.  

    • Sure if they can support themselves and are all consenting adults. 

    • Anonymous

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

  • Anonymous

     Kids want parents who love them. A same-sex couple is quite as capable of providing love as a heterosexual couple.

    • Adding any sin to a childs life is WRONG!

      • Now that is not in the Bible. 

        •  Matthew 18:4-6…..4So anyone who becomes as humble as this little child is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven. +     5“And anyone who welcomes a little child like this on my behalf* is welcoming me. + 6But if you cause one of these little ones who trusts in me to fall into sin, it would be better for you to have a large millstone tied around your neck and be drowned in the depths of the sea. +

          Children are trusting by nature. Because they trust adults, they are easily led to faith in Christ. God holds parents and other adults accountable for how they influence these little ones. Jesus warned that anyone who turns little children away from faith in him will receive severe punishment.

          Better get out the Bible and do some more studying aye?

          • You are beating a dead horse. There are many Christians gay parents. If you believe they are sinning that is your belief. However, the sins of the parent are not the sins of the child. It is heterosexual parents who give birth to and raise gay children. Gay parents statistically raise heterosexual children. However, your anger is definitely not teaching your children the right things. God Bless. 
            So I can be a liar and tell everyone I am straight and be miserable. That is a better example for my beautiful, educated, well adjusted children. 

      • Tedlick Badkey

        Too late to enforce your opinion there…

        Gays already adopt in all 50 states. Nothing you can do about it.

      • Anonymous

        Thankfully, same sex couples are not adding sin to their children’s lives— they are adding love, and with access to civil marriage, they will be adding better protections, too.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t see how changing the civil law so same-sex marriage is legal has any effect on your church’s definition of marriage. It may expand the scope of civil marriage, but your church’s marriage ceremony can remain resolutely heterosexual.

  • Anonymous

    YOU have decided homosexual acts are a sin. I don’t think you are entitled to speak for God. 

    Historically, people who have claimed to speak for God have caused no end of suffering and misery.
     

    • I am not speaking FOR God…just referring YOU to what God has said! There is quite a difference chumly!

      • Then please use ALL his words. No pork, no tattoos, no women speaking in church, marriage after divorce is adultery, No masturbation, No form of birth control whatsoever, slaves obey masters, No oral sex, No sex without conception. 

        • Anonymous

          Judging by how angry Bill Peters sounds, I don’t think he’s getting much sex.  I think that’s why he’s so opposed to same sex marriage.  He’s just jealous.

      • Tedlick Badkey

        Your god is nothing but a choice…

        No one is forced to abide by it’s rules.

  • Anonymous

    Any business does.  I never said otherwise.  All I was saying is that a bigger business can better handle a backlash.  You are reading way too much into my comments, trying to make me say somthing I never said.

    • Anonymous

      Your point was not missed but there is truth beyond your post parameters you are not addressing which is related and valid.

      Progressive ideology includes the infiltration, indoctrination and control of all the institutions which have been the strength of American society from it’s founding including this personalized initiative through the Gay Rights Lobby. How does pushing  gay rights affect the lives of non-gays? The Boy Scouts of America know. Families know. Churches know. Schools know and yes…businesses know. 

      In reality businesses are very aware of the potential loss of sales simply for voicing their opinion. Most make deliberate efforts not to therefore for that reason. The result in effect is that despite their self-governance their freedom of speech has been restricted.

      Do you agree that businesses and corporations “are people too?” as it concerns either conservative or progressive expressed opinions on this gay relationship issue?

      • Anonymous

        Wow, didn’t know I was talking to a conspiracy theorist.

        “Progressive ideology includes the infiltration, indoctrination and control of all the institutions ” – Citation Needed

        “The result in effect is that despite their self-governance their freedom of speech has been restricted. ” – No, it hasn’t.  As long as the government is not penalizing the business, no rights are being violated.  Freedom of speech does NOT equal freedom from criticism.  The right that allows business owners to express their opiniopns is the same right that allows me to criticize them for it.

        “Do you agree that businesses and corporations “are people too?”” – No

        Guess what, as much as you might hate it, LGBT people have certain rights in this country.  This includes the right to shop where they choose.  If a show owner tells me that they think I am a second class citizen, I’m not going to shop there anymore.  That’s called capitalism.  Don’t like it?  Tough.

        • Anonymous

          “Citation needed”………..that’s your homework.

          Self governance in this case is most certainly opinion restrictive . The knee-jerk reactive emotion (as you charge) that ” As long as the government is not penalizing the business, no rights are being violated.”  is ” somthing I never said.”  Criticism not equal to freedom of speech? I agree…..please remember your own words as opinion contrary to your is voiced.

          Job creation is what this election is all about and exactly why Capitalism will seat Mitt Romney for his ability to create them…and the accompanying restoration of the conservative principles which will then produce national  economic health. Just my opinion… 

          • Anonymous

            “that’s your homework.” – No.  You make the claim, you provide the proof.  Don’t like it?  Tough.

            “Criticism not equal to freedom of speech? ” – That’s not what I said.  I said freedom of speech =/= freedom from criticism.  Learn to read before posting.  The right that lets you spout off your ignorant bs is the same right that allows me to call you out on it.  Why do you hate freedom of speech?

          • Anonymous

            (Mainers…these attacks will intensify. Please remember Mitt Romney’s quote “Attacking me is not an agenda”.)

            The study of European History which includes Karl Marx et al takes a whole lot more time than I have by punching away on my keyboard. My time is valuable and necessary elsewhere but I’ll be back later.

            ……..Who warned that the United States will be overpowered from within?…..  

          • Anonymous

            Yeah, I can’t hope to have a rational conversation with someone who isn’t living in reality.  You go on and fight those space aliens now…

  • Question 1:
    NO!

    • Anonymous

      Question 1:
      YES!
      FTFY

    • Anonymous

      Question 1 :
      YES !!!

      it must be terrible to be sooo afraid of something

      • Anonymous

        He’s just jealous of all the same sex couples finding happiness when no one will love him.  If he can’t be happy, then no one can be happy.

    • Tedlick Badkey

      On what rational grounds?

    • Anonymous

      I have voted YES on question 1, because we should allow ALL Maine families the opportunity to protect their lives with civil marriage.

  • Anonymous

    Does anyone with a brain still read this newspaper?   Save your money and buy the Boston Globe, at least it’s thicker and has a Sunday edition.  The BDN doesn’t represent the values or sensibilities of Maine, but instead  tries to push big city liberalism upon us.  Go away BDN, the Wall Street Journal (the most popular paper in the country) is on newstands everywhere.

    • Anonymous

      If you have a problem with the BDN, then stop reading it.

      • Anonymous

         I don’t lol.  Who, capable of logical and/or independent thought, would?

        • Anonymous

          If you don’t read it, why are you commenting on it?  You realize that everytime you come on, you are giving the website hits, thereby increasing revenue?

          • Tedlick Badkey

            He’s confessing to being a troll.

          • Anonymous

             Yeah, everyone that doesn’t think like you is a troll.  As I said about logical and/or independent thought, you fit perfectly  the clientele of the BDN.  Keep reading!!!!!

          • Anonymous

            You must really love the BDN, what with continuing to contributer to the website’s hit counter, thereby increasing ad revenue.  Thank you for your contributions!

          • Anonymous

            Sorry to burst your bubble, but I almost never post here.  As I said earlier, with few exceptions, few posting here are capable of thinking for themselves and just regurgitate the drivel from the media.  But there are exceptions.

          • Anonymous

            And yet you keep posting, increasing revenue.  For someone who hates the BDN so much, you sure seem to be doing your part to increase their revenue.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            No… people who don’t even read BDN but come here to flame others… they’re trolls.
            It has nothing to do with logical or independent thought.

            You wouldn’t know either if it slapped you… you’re just as much a zombie as the democrats you slam.

    • Anonymous

      Upholding the promise of our Constitution for all Americans is a conservative value!

      And actually, USA Today is the most popular paper in the country, for what that’s worth.

    • Tedlick Badkey

      No, it doesn’t represent the “values or sensibilities” of you…

      Which is why I pay for it… your “values and sensibilities” are to get a kick out of harming other law-abiding, tax-paying citizens.

      I do also get WSJ…

    • So if the state passes SSM will you retract your statement?

      • Anonymous

        No, no more than if the state passed a law legitimizing marrying one’s sister or cocker spaniel.  I really don’t care who or what someone has sex with, but only marriage between a man and a woman is “marriage.” 

    • Anonymous

       Thats because you believe what you want to believe  known as you have your mind all made up an nothing will change it

  • 1 Corinthians 6

    9Do you not know that the wicked will not
    inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral
    nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor
    thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit
    the kingdom of God.

    Hmmmmm…pretty darn clear as to how God feels about homosexual acts, as well as other sins!

    Please explain again why I would want my marriage defined in the same breath as  homosexual offenders , sexually immoral, idolaters , adulterers ,etc.?

    I am voting NO on question 1!

    • Anonymous

      I don’t care about what your particular brand of deity thinks.

    • Anonymous

      You’re so wrong, and it’s so sad that you use the wonderful message of the Gospel to offend and demonize families in Maine.

      God condemns rape and victimization, not love. The biblical passages you share do not stand against the committed, supportive love two people share when they want to spend their lives together in truth.

      I have voted YES on question 1, because our government should treat all Maine families equally in access to civil marriage rights.

      • You have been “brainwashed”! Congrats!

        • Anonymous

          Your attitude is identical to those so-called “christians” who preached that slavery was ordained by God, using biblical passages to support their terrible subjugation of an entire race of people.

          And just as we now look back on that with horror, we will look back at your unethical attitudes and be embarrassed that people like you were considered Christians.

        • Tedlick Badkey

          And you’ve been taught to buy bull.

    • Anonymous

        Marriage has been redefined many times do ma search an you will see . In the bible it said man could have more than none wife  . 

      What does the Bible say about having more than one wife?

      The Bible Questions

      Answers.com
      >
      Wiki Answers
      >
      Categories
      >
      Religion & Spirituality
      >
      Christianity
      >
      The Bible

      Best Answer

      The bible does not specifically address the number of Wives that a man should have.

      “ONE
      FLESH” — “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and
      shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” Genesis 2:24,
      referenced in Matthew 19:5,6, Mark 10:8, 1_Corinthians 6:16, Ephesians
      5:31. A man is “one flesh” with EACH woman with whom he copulates,
      whether in marriage (wife) or in fornication (harlot). When a married
      man, who is therefore already “one flesh” with his wife, copulates with
      another woman, that does not then negate his being “one flesh” with the
      wife.

      “And in that day
      seven women shall take hold of one man,
      saying,
      We will eat our own bread,
      and wear our own apparel:
      only let us be called by thy name,
      to take away our reproach. ”
      Isaiah 4:1.
      That
      “seven women” would seek to be called by the name of “one man” is a
      clear evidence of polygamy (polygyny) in the Bible, even in prophecy
      such as this passage. Of course, though, the situation described in this
      prophetic verse is not all that positive.

      • You turn to “answers.com” to get your biblical questions answered? Are you kidding me?

        • Anonymous

          better than your delusions– try actually reading the bible sometime

        • Anonymous

          Far better than turning to you, or anyone else who turns the wonderful spirit of the Gospel into an excuse to hate.

          • Anonymous

             He just can’t stand facts thats all.Let me put it this way he’s right everyone else is wrong

        • Anonymous

          than you do a search an show me were im wrong ??

        • Tedlick Badkey

          It’s as realistic as turning to the bible.

    • Tedlick Badkey

      Good for you… vote to harm law-abiding, tax-paying citizens.

      I’m sure Jesus is proud of you…

      Good thing your religion isn’t our law… your god is a choice at best.

    • Anonymous

      well bill, ever been divorced? had an affair, lived with someone without being married? fornicated without the sanctity of marriage at any time in your life? tell me how you were defending marriage when you did any of these things?
      and if your marriage is so pathetic that someone else getting married is going to impact it so, perhaps you had best spend your time trying to save your marriage rather than posting inane comments— SSM will not affect my marriage in the least

      • Anonymous

        “well bill, ever been divorced?’ – Silly, that would require Bill to actually find someone to marry him in the first place.

    • Anonymous

      http://www.letusreason.org/Biblexp75.htm   this is about more than one wife for the bible just like the other site  i gave u

      • Tedlick Badkey

        Now that you mention it, that verse doesn’t say a damned thing about being gay.

        Methinks Bill is making shite up as he goes along.

        • Anonymous

          Yes i know thats why im not bothering with him any more

  • Truthu

     Yes. Because there are homosexual women and homosexual men
    There are homosexual male couples and homosexual female couples.
    and
    for every sexuality counts that there are always men and women
    (heterosexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality) and that there are also
    other people to reproduce (single women and men) .

    How do homosexuals reproduce naturally?Homosexuality is natural because homosexual use natural methods to make kids.There
    are two natural methods to make kids: 1. Sex 2. Petting (Insert sperm
    into/inside a woman). It is romantic to make the own child.

    Only heterosexuals make kids?No. Also bisexuals (male +female ) and homosexuals

    But a homosexual woman and a homosexual man do not love each other?Yes. But Reproduction has nothing to do with love. It is also about to make new generations and to make a new strong family.If only a man and a woman would survive a catastrophe on earth and all other people diedthen
    the man and the woman that do not know each other would likely make new
    kids to make a new humanity. The man and the woman do not even like
    each oter , love each other or know each other but would likely
    reproduce to make a new humanity.

    But the child learns that the parents(homosexual woman +homosexual
    man) love the same sex and do not love each other and just like each
    other?Yes. But when bisexuals have kids then the kids also learn that the parents love the same sex.

    How does a homosexual family look like?If (for example) a homosexual man knows a homosexual woman and both know each other long and both like each other then they could make a child and make a family.If (for example) a homosexual male couple knows a homosexual female coupleand both know each other long and both like each other then they could make a child and make a family.So when a homosexual man + woman have a child then the homosexual parents (m+f) and their homosexual partnerlive together with the child in one house/apartement etc.

    Is it a strong family?Yes. Because there are four adults in the family . Every adult has a job andthat is why the financial situation is good. Also if one adult will lose the job there are still three other adults who have a job.If only one man + one woman live together with achild there is only one adult who has ajob if the other one will lose the job .Some
    people like to follow the traditions and definitions of the church and
    do not want to live satisfied and good , also when they know that a
    family with only one man + one woman is not good when it comes to the financial situation .Also if something’s gonna happen to the parents the child can /could stay with /by the homosexual partners of the parents(parents= one homosexual man +one homosexual woman)

    So do not follow the church and the traditional definition of family if you want to live in a strong family.

    The definition of family should be?A family is a strong community of people that live together and support each other .A family is a perfect place to make new kids and to make new generations of people , where kids learn how to live , survive etc.

    Imagine a ountry where only homosexual people live?Yes. A country where only homosexual people live would exist forever because there are homosexual men and homosexual women.A country where only gay couples live would exist forever because there arehomosexual men couples and homosexual female couples .

    But the world is a place where every sexuality and every couple can reproduce becausethere
    are many people on earth . That is why everyone and every sexuality ,
    couple can procreate because there are two natural methods to make kids
    (Sex and Petting)

    HIV and homosexuality?Only homosexual men have a high rate of HIV because of medical reasons.But also heterosexuals have HIV and everyone can protect against HIV .There are enough things to protect against HIV .HIV has nothing to do with homosexuality beacause lesbians have less HIV than heterosexuals when you look at the HIV statitisc.And MSM have much HIV but that doe not mean that all men (MSM) are homosexual.

    Also in many countries you can’t talk honest about how you got HIV infected beacauseProstitution
    or Homosexuality is illegal. That is why also many heterosexual men
    mght not say the truth about how they got HIV infected because sex with a
    prostitute is illegal.It could be that they say I’m homosexual and had homosexul sex beacause in some countries homosexuality is accepted and legal but prostitution is illegal.But also homosexuals would not always say the truth when they live in a country where homosexuality is illegal.

    To be single is dangerous , ungodly and unnatural especially when /if you like it to be single?Yes.
    It is. Because imagine all people would die and only one single will
    survive . A single can’t reproduce and make a new humanity but you like
    it to be single.Singles can’t reproduce naturally . What are we
    going to do with singles that like to stay single ?Should we heal them ,
    does God hate them ? Should we force them to like a realtionship or to
    date someone else , to find a partner? Should we execute them because
    singles that like it to be single and want to stay single are unnatural
    because they do not make kids and can’t make kids natural(ly) , because
    singles that like it to be single and want to stay single are a threat
    to humanity ?No. I don’t think so.

    • Truthu

       It’s sad that some poeple live how the church wants cuz the definitions of church do not always help peopleI’d
      rather to know who suffers more through financial crisis one man and
      woman families or gay families(gay female couple+gay male couple that
      have a child together through petting) . If you live in a one man and
      one woman family and one adult will lose the job there is just one adult
      who has a job and brings money home . In a gay family there’re 4 adults
      and if one adult will lose the job there’re 3 other adults who bring
      the money home . So good for the kid Also heterosexual or bisexual families are allowed to do that .

      There’re not only gay couples alive there’re also singles that like to be single and do not want to have a realationship but want to start a family .and
      there’s not only male gay couples alive , there’s also female gay
      couples and singles . So the world is no place where people have no
      possibility to reproduce . There’s is always a possibility to reproduce
      wit natural methods .Do reps want to forbid that too? That people have the naturally possibility to reproduce ?US-Republicans
      just want that people follow their defintions ! I call it dictatorship
      cuz everyone is allowed to make a family as one likes and not how
      republicans like

      • Truthu

         I Support Gay Marriage.
        Gay Marriage will not end humanity.
        There are two methods to reproduce naturally and.
        many people forget about that.
        To be single and to like it is also unnatural…
        and some singles do not want to have a relationship but want to start a family.
        EVERYONE IS ALLOWED TO MAKE A FAMILY AS ONE LIKES.
        We don’t live in a dictatorship.

        There are so many possibilities to reproduce.
        There are not only gay male couples , there are also gay female couples and there are singles etc.
        The world is no place where people can’t reproduce.

        Every sexuality is able to reproduce , also homosexuality does not end humanity.
        Not only heterosexuals reproduce , also bisexuals reproduce with natural methods like sex or petting.

        A country where only gay couples live will exist forever because there
        are not only gay male couples , there are also gay female couples. Homosexual are men and women, not only men or women. For more informations read https://www.youtube.com/user/JeromeDanielOfficial?feature=mhee. I also think reproduction has nothing to do with love. You can also do it if u like someone or for example if humanity will end. and just one man and one woman that do not know each other will survive. then both will reproduce to make a new humanity also if both don’t know each other, love each other or like each other. Imagine humanity will end and just one single will stay alive. A single who likes to be single will stay alive and a single can’t reproduce.
        and make a new humanity. So all singles who like to be single you’re
        unnatural and dangerous for the humanity. Do we now have to therapy all
        singles that like to be single or are we a free country with a
        democracy? Like I already said to separate gay men and gay
        women from each other is no good example because LIFE and NATURE do also
        not separate gay men and women from each other. Also if only gays exist the pope does not have to worry about the humanity.
        The humnaity will not end also if only gays would exist because there
        are gay men and gay women and everywhere where men and women are
        together there are methods to reproduce with natural methods. Not only
        with sex , also with petting. Petting can be romantic , especially when you don’t like sex but want to start a family with your fingers smile :) I don’t write anything about it now cause it is too intimate.

Similar Articles