January 20, 2018
Augusta Latest News | Poll Questions | Bridgewater Arrest | Bangor Mall | Real ID

Comments for: US Supreme Court can’t undo Maine’s new same-sex marriage law

Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

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

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

  • Anonymous

    “In any event, the court will not, cannot, invalidate what the people of Maine voted to do.” Yes. This.

    • Anonymous

      If a gay couples marriage license is only recognized in Maine, does that mean the gays can only get divorced in Maine?

      • Anonymous

        Actually, yes, it does (in all seriousness). That has been a problem in several states that have legalized same-sex marriage. If the couple moves away, they can’t get a divorce without first returning to their home state. Just another facet of why DOMA is unconstitutional. Once DOMA is gone, same-sex marriage will follow in the steps of interracial marriage. Or this Summer could be the modern day Loving v. Virginia.

        • maineiac123

          I wish that were true but it isn’t. All of DOMA will not be gone, only that part of DOMA that prohibits same-sex couples from receiving federal benefits. Assuming of course that the Court doesn’t find that neither the Plaintiff in the California Case or the Defendant in the DOMA case has standing. In which case, same-sex couples will be able to marry in California and all married couples will be able to recieve federal benefits. Still won’t make a Maine marriage legal in Texas.

      • Anonymous

        It depends on the state— I believe gays will be able to divorce in other states which recognize same-sex marriage, but I’m only familiar with the instances where married couples have lived in states that forbid same-sex marriage… and in those states, married same-sex couples have no access to divorce.

    • Tedlick Badkey

      They can… but not based upon the cases before them at this time.

      • maineiac123

        Actually they cannot unless they decide to ignore the constitution completely. Marriage is a state issue not a federal issue and there is nothing in the constitution that forbids same-sex marriage.

  • Anonymous

    Oh, crap… I must of hit the wrong key, and got the Bangor Gaily.

    • Anonymous

      Say hi to the dinosaurs for me wouldya?

      • Anonymous

        Good one!

      • Anonymous

        I said hi to the dinosaurs for ya. And guess who I ran into…Yup, Barney Rubble and Fred Flintstone. Barney said to have a yuba duby gay old time, and Fred said, “You what they say about someone that can’t take a joke.”

        • Anonymous

          So Fred recommended gay sex as a remedy for your problem? Appropriate. Fred’s pretty smart for a neanderthal.

          • Anonymous

            Do you expect the straight world to patronize you just because you’re gay? Do you think same-sex marrage is some magic wand that will make the problems the gay community has just go away? I Don’t know any gays,? I don’t have family members that are gay?
            When we get together the gay and straight jokes fly about, a good times had by all–get over it.

    • LOL…Good one…Bangor Gaily!

  • Anonymous

    It should not invais the peoples vote one way or the other. This is a state issue not federal period

    • maineiac123

      Of course it should invalidate the peoples vote. Do you think if we passed a law by the majority that women will have to wear veils and cannot work that the court should not be able to invalidate that law? The constitution to a large extent is as much than a curb on the majority as it is protection for the minority.

  • Anonymous

    This is really great news!!!

    • Anonymous

      How so? What is so great about LGBT married couples not being able to receive their spouses benefits?

      • Anonymous

        geez…..I meant great news in the sense that the U.S. Supreme court cannot undo what was voted for in Maine!

  • Anonymous

    The Supreme Court can do whatever it wants with same-sex marriage laws. Anyone who says differently is woefully misinformed and unfit to serve as Maine’s AG.

    • Anonymous

      The SCOTUS is unlikely to invalidate the Maine law. Even if they strike down the lower court ruling it will have no impact on the Maine law.

      • Anonymous

        My point stands.

        • Anonymous

          They will not invalidate the Maine law.

          • Anonymous

            My point stands.

          • Anonymous

            Nudge the needle.

          • Anonymous

            Your having a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

          • Anonymous

            Must be a guinea.

          • Anonymous

            Racist much?

          • Anonymous

            Loud and Proud Scot.

          • maineiac123

            Wow, ignorant and racist. You got the lot.

          • Anonymous

            Really.

            Bet you thought the SCOTUS would not overturn the state band against interracial marriage either. After all that was the “conventional” wisdom of the day.

            But they didn’t and establishe marriage as a “fundemental civil right”.

        • maineiac123

          Actually it doesn’t because you never had a point.

    • Anonymous

      Hey spin, what the AG was inferring was that in order for SCOTUS to review the Maine law, a lawsuit must be filed. And work its way through various lower courts before that point. Gays filed a lawsuit because Prop 8 violates the 14th amendment and DOMA violates equal protections as described in the fifth amendment. How are SSM opponents going to file a lawsuit against the Maine law? On what grounds? Because they don’t like the law? That it violates their morality? Sorry, you’re going to need a better reason than that.

      • Anonymous

        They could easily overturn it with the Prop 8 case. All they do is hear the case and opine that not only does the Constitution not require same-sex marriage, but it actually prohibits it. Their reasoning doesn’t even matter, given that they are totally unaccountable to anyone. The odds of that happening are so slim that I wouldn’t even try to assign it a number, but this article and some of the comments illustrate an unacceptable level of ignorance in the general population. These people would have us believe that they’re of above average intelligence, but their comments prove otherwise.

        • Tedlick Badkey

          But… the Constitution doesn’t prohibit it.

          • Anonymous

            Who cares? They can still rule that it does.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            No… because it doesn’t.

            There must be rational reasoning behind it, and it doesn’t exist in your scenario.

          • Anonymous

            And they can rule that pigs fly too but that doesn’t mean they can.

            Seriously you are grasping at straws when you say they can rule that the US Constitution prohibits SSM.

          • maineiac123

            That’s exactly what he’s doing…grasping at straws.

        • Anonymous

          Spin, that inane response of yours is exhibit A on why Janet Mills is the AG, and you’re not.

        • maineiac123

          I think the only ignorance I’m seeing here spin is yours. To suggest that the Supreme Court can overturn Maine law without a suit, or that somehow the Justices could determine that the Constitution prohibits SSM is an absurdity. Your original comment is wrong and this one makes it even more blatently obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about.

    • Tedlick Badkey

      They can if they have rational basis for it.

      And thus far, that’s never been put forward.

      • Anonymous

        B.S. They don’t need a rational basis for anything. They are lifetime appointments and accountable to no one.

        • Anonymous

          They can be impeached

          • Tedlick Badkey

            Aye… that they can.

  • Mórrígan

    I am wondering about the parallels between this “states rights” v. federal law issue and the recently approved relaxation of marijuana possession and use. The reciprocity of concealed carry laws is another potential curiosity.

    If the SCOTUS requires the federal government to respect state law, does that mean the justice department will have to ignore what is going on in Washington and Colorado now? Or, will the justices’ decision here become the starting point of erosion of laws regarding interstate commerce and contract recognition between the various states.

    I guess it would be only fitting if Texas was required to recognize Maine’s SSM and Maine was required to recognize the concealed carry permits issued to Texans.

    • maineiac123

      Actually the constitution provides for the one state not accepting laws from another state so that part of DOMA will most likely be upheld. What probably won’t be upheld is that part of DOMA that says only opposite-sex marriage will work for federal benefits. States have always defined marriage in this country, not the federal government and under the 14th and 16th Amendments I don’t believe the federal government will be able to withhold federal benefits from same-sex couples that are legally married under state laws. That is simply treating marriage differently because of the sex of couples.

      • Anonymous

        But don’t forget that contracts (and a marriage is considered to be a contract) are enforceable across state lines. So the SCOTUS could toss out that part of DOMA too.

        There is also precedent for them to toss that part out too. The 1967 Loving v. Virginia case that invalidated bans on interracial marriage laws at the state level. While no law at the time existed on the federal level like DOMA they could use Loving as a precedent and toss DOMA altogether.

    • Anonymous

      BUT because of the second amendment, SCOTUS could very well say that all States must honor concealed carry permits while, at the same time allowing the Feds to continue to prosecute violations of the Federal controlled substances law.

      The Constitution clearly states that Federal law supersedes State law The tenth amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
      prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
      or to the people.”

      Unfortunately the automobile was not invented at the time of the tenth, so each State has its own way of licensing and regulating cars. Some States mandate inspections, and some States allow privacy glass. No State may prohibit a duly licensed vehicle from traveling through that State, or force a motorist to alter their vehicle to conform with local laws .

      This would seem to be a good argument for States being mandated to allow people married in other States to stay married in non-compliant States, BUT then there is the issue of residency. Maybe a Maine couple can remain married while traveling through Texas, but can not maintain their status if they become Lone-Star residents.

      People who live by the law understand that the law was written by folks with an interest in “conformity” It is used as a cudgel . to hammer people who stray from societies norms. Only rarely is it used to include minorities.

      The big question (which is wide open) is: Is this one of the times for inclusion? Or will we go back to Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393?

    • Anonymous

      Drugs are a federal issue. The Federal government can make drug laws under their “interstate commerce” powers. Marriage has never been a federal issue and before DOMA, the federal government accepted whatever each state determined marriage to be (for example, some states allow you to wed at an earlier age or allow you to wed your cousin). Even states were required to recognize other states’ marriages. If the Supreme Court struct down DOMA all we would do would revert back to pre-DOMA — there wouldn’t be any new or alarming precedent like you suggest might happen.

      Concealed carry isn’t analogous to marriage. Possessing a gun is an act, while being married is a status.

  • Anonymous

    I still can’t believe the law passed.

    I’m so proud of 53% of Mainers.

    • Dope Boy

      Yeah, amazing what outside money to the tune of $25 + million dollars can buy in our neck of the woods eh..
      (try not to trip getting to your alter of love)

      • Tedlick Badkey

        How did money “buy” same sex marriage in Maine?

        • StillRelaxin

          Well apparently conservatives still think that money can buy them love, just ask all those Zumba dancing businessmen in Kennebunk.

          • Anonymous

            Love is free………but Republicans sure are willing to pay good $$$$ for it!……LOL.

          • Anonymous

            The only Zumba John identified by political party was a Democrat.

      • Anonymous

        And where did the money that NOM gave to the opponents come from? Oh yeah, that’s right we don’t know because they refuse to obey Maine law.

      • Anonymous

        Try not to crap your pants when you get the runs.

      • Anonymous

        You guys are sore losers. There is always some reason and some excuse as to why you lost — that’s pathetic. Own up and take responsibility for yourself, quit blaming everyone else.

    • stopthecrying

      I’m more proud of the 47%

  • northernmaine

    I doubt very highly that the Supreme Court of the U.S. would overturn this, but it is certainly in their power to do so. The highest court in the land will have the last say.

    • Tedlick Badkey

      There is no challenge to Maine’s marriage law.

    • Anonymous

      It’s about SSM couples receiving the same benefits that hetero married couples do when the other has passed away. It’s not about same sex marriage and overturning the Maine law.

      • Anonymous

        That is not what this article was all about (headline). Yes, SSM couples should receive the same benefits. It is taking too long but it is happening.

  • Anonymous

    But if the high court were to find the federal Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, that could trigger recognition of same-sex marriage on a federal level, which would give same-sex married couples equal tax breaks and Social Security benefits to heterosexual couples. I think that this is what it is all about. Get married so you can get to claim more tax cuts.

    • Tedlick Badkey

      You obviously don’t understand exactly what is bestowed through marriage.

      For me and mine, filing jointly would be a tax penalty.

      Why do so many fail to see the other protections and guarantees that come with marriage?

      • maineiac123

        “Why do so many fail to see the other protections and guarantees that come with marriage?” Because they don’t want it. By ignoring this they can continue their bias and hatred towards the LGBT community and same-sex marriage.

    • Anonymous

      Guess you never heard of the federal “tax penalty”.

      Seriously, do heterosexual couples get married for the federal benefits? Why do you assume that a same sex couple would?

  • Anonymous

    You know that society is in serious trouble when the supreme court is involved with this nonesense. You know they shoud go over the exisiting 2 gazillions bills and laws that are already in place and purge the obsolete ones. Soon we will be the USA a division of China and the North American representative for the European Council. And we keep passing dumb laws and debating them to boot. Yep and I added to this.

    • Anonymous

      So you’d rather our US Supreme Court not be there to protect the civil rights of Americans?

      I suppose to you ending segregation and allowing interracial marriage were also signs that society was in trouble?

      The truth is that treating Americans equally under our laws is a Constitutional matter, and the US Supreme Court is the final line of defense for this important document.

      • Anonymous

        supreme court has become a political hand of Obama

        • Tedlick Badkey

          Why? Because you disagree with them?

        • Anonymous

          You really have no idea what you’re talking about, do you? The majority of Supreme Court justices are conservative appointees.

        • Guest

          I wish they were……!

        • Anonymous

          LOL!

  • Tedlick Badkey
  • Anonymous

    I want 5 wives, or maybe not, yet I should have the choice.. I am sure people who support gay marriage would have a negitive opinion on this, just because they think only certain people should marry.

    • Tedlick Badkey

      Start a petition drive.

      Good luck!

      • Anonymous

        Exactly…….good luck with getting signatures, pushtheredbutton!

    • Anonymous

      If you can’t argue against gay marriage without bringing up polygamy, then you have no argument against gay marriage.

    • maineiac123

      I support same-sex marriage and if you start a petition to permit polygamous marriage I’d sign it. So you’re being “sure” shows just how wrong you are.

    • notateapartier

      I believe there is already a movement to decriminalize polygamy/bigamy. Join it.

  • Anonymous

    Didn’t the U.S. District court, in 2010, in California, nullify the lawfully voted in Proposition 8 that defined marriage as between one man and woman? Wasn’t that court’s decision upheld by the 9th Circuit? It is now in the U.S. Supreme Court. So, there is precedent for the courts to nullify what the voters have decided. If the Supreme Court rules that Maine’s law, voted in by the majority, is unconstitutional, then I would think that Maine would have to abide by it.

    • Tedlick Badkey

      On what grounds could they do so? There is no lawsuit against gay marriage in Maine… the SCOTUS is not determining if the constitution bans same-sex marriage.

      So… what are you talking about?

      • Anonymous

        “If the nation’s highest court were to decide against same-sex marriage, that ruling would have no bearing on Maine’s new law”, Mills said.

        Obviously, if the law is challenged in the Supreme Court, and it is overturned, despite the majority of voters favoring same-sex marriage, then Maine would have to abide by the SCOTUS ruling.

        The point I was making was that just because the voters approved a law or proposition at the voting booth, does not mean that it is set in stone, i.e. the lawfully voted in Prop 8 in California being overturned by the courts.

        • Tedlick Badkey

          Oh, sure… if there were a valid lawsuit brought before the court they could absolutely overturn it.

          • maineiac123

            Actually they could overturn Maine’s law but it would be though twisted logic and absolute scorn for the Constitution for them to do so.

        • maineiac123

          I don’t think you understand what is really going on here. If Maine law was challenged the Supreme Court would be very hard pressed to find a reason to over-turn it. States, since the inception of the the U.S., have determined the requirements for marriage. The only way the court could overturn Maine law is simply by ignoring the Constitution itself. I doubt they would do that again, the Bush decision was enough in ignoring the Constitution.

    • maineiac123

      You obviously don’t understand the difference between what happened in California and Maine. California had a law permitting same-sex marriage and many thousands of people were married under that law. Proposition 8 was a California constitutional amendment that removed the right of same-sex marriage for people in the future. Because the law took away the right of marriage for a select few the Courts said that is unconstitutional. Had the right never existed then the Court would have held differently. The majority have no right whatsoever to interfere with the rights of others. There has been precedent for the courts to nullify what voters have decided for many many years when what the voters decide treats others unequally or unfairly. Maine law does not do that and only with total disregard and contempt for the Constitution could this court overturn Maine’s law. There simply is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits same-sex couples from marrying. That is and has been from our inception a state issue, not a federal one, which is why DOMA will most likely be held to be unconstitutional as far as Federal tax laws and benefits are concerned.

    • Anonymous

      It doesn’t matter. We could vote to enact slavery again, but it doesn’t matter because slavery is unconstitutional. Allowing gay marriage is constitutional. Taking away gay marriage because you disapprove of gays is unconstitutional. The Constitution trumps.

  • Anonymous

    “…but could possibly expand federal benefits to same-sex couples who marry in Maine.”

    As I have said from the beginning, this is about money, not love or equality. Another class of folks feeding at the already depleted trough.

    • Tedlick Badkey

      No different than you getting married hon… and it is, indeed, about far more than money.

    • Anonymous

      I agree…….half the heterosexual couples marry for money…….hence why 50% end in divorce.

      • Anonymous

        You will not get any disagreement on that from me.

    • Anonymous

      And you’ve never been able to back up your claim. I can keep saying that the world is flat, but it won’t magically make it so.

      • Anonymous

        and you are a liberal hack, so who would believe you. In case you haven’t had an education past the seventh grade, I’ll tell you that up to now, throughout all history ALL prejudice has had an economic basis.

        • Anonymous

          LOL and we’re supposed to believe you when you say you know the reasons why people want/do get married?

          • Anonymous

            If all he can say is liberal hack, then he does not have much credibility. He doesn’t seem to be coming from a good place.

    • notateapartier

      While I do not agree that couples marry in order to get federal benefits, I do agree that it is unfair/discriminitory for one married couple to receive more recognition or benefits than another.

      • Anonymous

        Of course it is unfair and discriminatory . Common decency tells you that.

    • Anonymous

      Nope, you are wrong. And maybe just because it is not important to you (does not directly affect your life) does not mean it is not important to them.

  • Anonymous

    GOOD leave the poor people alone and let them live their lives the way they choose. It’s NO ONE”S business.

  • Anonymous

    Ah the troll is back.

You may also like