Gay Marriage Fails In Maine

Is regular Marriage a Right?

If it's a priveledge, hey that's cool but let's IN LEGAL TERMS offer everyone that same priveledge. In Religious terms, they can be as exclusive as they want and nobody should have beef with that.

I Quoted "Loving" from 67ish in this Thread...

It's NOT only a "Right", it's "Fundemental to our VERY Existence"...

It was the Basis for Reversing the Denial of Interracial Marriage.

Read: ProCreation.

Blacks and Whites CAN.

Men and Men FAIL.

Women and Women FAIL.

:)

peace...

I believe if you consider marriage a "right" then you shouldn't get to say who's granted the right, unless you're doing so from Religious means which isn't really Democracy.

So men should be allowed to marry boys? I mean after all how dare you tell that small minority who they can and can not marry? Ever hear of NAMBLA?

And I will repeat something that irritated a whole lot of people in another thread. Using your logic, incest between consenting adults should be completely legal. After all what right have you to tell that small minority they can not marry?
 
The vote yesterday repealed a law passed this spring by the maine state legislature and signed into law by the governor of maine.

WHO needs to take a class?

You obviously do, you see, obviously in Maine they have a referendum system to repel laws the Majority actually do not support. That is part of the Government of Maine. Aren't you from Maine? Seems you would actually know your own Government system.

which leads back to the civil rights act.... doesn't it? the legislature SHOULD pass acts that protect equality and that should NEVER be left to the tyranny of the majority. If we as a nation had done so with civil rights, blacks would never have gotten equal rights under the law.

Thirty states have constitutional amendments against gay marriage. None have been struck down by the US Supreme Court. Not going to happen.
 
By GLENN ADAMS and DAVID CRARY, Associated Press Writers Glenn Adams And David Crary, Associated Press Writers – 19 mins ago

PORTLAND, Maine – Maine voters repealed a state law Tuesday that would have allowed same-sex couples to wed, dealing the gay rights movement a heartbreaking defeat in New England, the corner of the country most supportive of gay marriage.

Gay marriage has now lost in every single state — 31 in all — in which it has been put to a popular vote. Gay-rights activists had hoped to buck that trend in Maine — known for its moderate, independent-minded electorate — and mounted an energetic, well-financed campaign.

Maine voters reject gay-marriage law - Yahoo! News

Link provided to comply with USMB copyright policy. You know better ...

~A15


Sad....for now.

While I feel Maine made the right decision, I also have gotten to know Bodecea through our frequent jousts here. Someone who I probably would enjoy talking with at work. Smart, funny and strong willed. My kind of person. Today, she is undoubtedly hurting. I take no happiness in that. I can only say, for me, civil unions are as far as I can bend Bodecea.
 
By GLENN ADAMS and DAVID CRARY, Associated Press Writers Glenn Adams And David Crary, Associated Press Writers – 19 mins ago

PORTLAND, Maine – Maine voters repealed a state law Tuesday that would have allowed same-sex couples to wed, dealing the gay rights movement a heartbreaking defeat in New England, the corner of the country most supportive of gay marriage.

Gay marriage has now lost in every single state — 31 in all — in which it has been put to a popular vote. Gay-rights activists had hoped to buck that trend in Maine — known for its moderate, independent-minded electorate — and mounted an energetic, well-financed campaign.

Maine voters reject gay-marriage law - Yahoo! News

Link provided to comply with USMB copyright policy. You know better ...

~A15


Sad....for now.

While I feel Maine made the right decision, I also have gotten to know Bodecea through our frequent jousts here. Someone who I probably would enjoy talking with at work. Smart, funny and strong willed. My kind of person. Today, she is undoubtedly hurting. I take no happiness in that. I can only say, for me, civil unions are as far as I can bend Bodecea.

And I would Agree... I have been Pro-Civil Unions for YEARS... Not just for Homosexuals, but for whoever Needs the "Business/Medical" Issues Eased.

Of course that is ALWAYS Ignored, and instead I will be Called a Homophobe at some Point.

Hell, I was already Called a Bigot for Observing our Natural Design.

And I am ALL for People Defying it... Free Society and all.

Just don't Expect Society to Applaud that Defiance in Law via Marriage.

:)

peace...
 
people know what they want and what they dont want, and they are not buying that this is about civil rights.

no they are deciding what other people want.

Lately I have been hearing, you lost and we won, so shut up until your group wins. Now its they are deciding what other people want. Be consistent.

From your comment - as well as many others' - it seems that politics is only a sport to you ... one group wins, the other looses. It is way more than that ... it is people's lives, people's rights and freedoms. Further, it's funny that your username is 'saveliberty' - it should be 'savelibertybutonlyforpeoplewiththesamevaluesasme' ...

Just an observation.

Carry on ...
 
Wow - we made it a full seven posts before someone tried to spin it into a referrendum on Obama - impressive - probably some sort of record.
 
Last edited:
no they are deciding what other people want.

Lately I have been hearing, you lost and we won, so shut up until your group wins. Now its they are deciding what other people want. Be consistent.

From your comment - as well as many others' - it seems that politics is only a sport to you ... one group wins, the other looses. It is way more than that ... it is people's lives, people's rights and freedoms. Further, it's funny that your username is 'saveliberty' - it should be 'savelibertybutonlyforpeoplewiththesamevaluesasme' ...

Just an observation.

Carry on ...

It was an observation with a comment at the end on my part as well. It would be nice if political battles had both sides win, but it really doesn't work that way. Thanks for imposing your values on me.
 
Can you guys stop using these tired canards alluding to some very generalized notion of equality and fairness? Not every public policy issue has to turn on this sort of basic notion of sameness. It's reductive and disingenuous. We don't have marriage benefits for the sole purpose of creating a higher class of person, and it's dishonest to act like all you care about is equality, when you know very well your definition of equality is inclusive to some and exclusive to others. There's never been the unmitigated right to marry whomever you want. If you acknowledge that the state (and yes, I'm including the People) has the right to set parameters on marriage, then you acknowledge that 1) it's a matter of social policy and not constitutionally protected civil rights, and 2) that notions of "equality" are largely unrealistic and irrelevant when talking about marriage.
 
First of all, the oringinal law did not give gays the right to marriage, just as this repeal didn't take it away.

The original law:

Marriage is the legally recognized union of 2 people. Gender-specific terms relating to the marital relationship or familial relationships, including, but not limited to, "spouse," "family," "marriage,"
"immediate family," "dependent," "next of kin," "bride," "groom," "husband," "wife," "widow" and
"widower," must be construed to be gender-neutral for all purposes throughout the law, whether in the
context of statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law or any other source of civil law.

http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/bills_124th/chappdfs/PUBLIC82.pdf

All it did was recognize gay marriages, which have always been legal and still are legal in all 50 states.

The repeal of this law just means the state will (once again) not recognize a same sex marriage. It does not outlaw the religious ceremony.
 
Last edited:
I Quoted "Loving" from 67ish in this Thread...

It's NOT only a "Right", it's "Fundemental to our VERY Existence"...

It was the Basis for Reversing the Denial of Interracial Marriage.

Read: ProCreation.

Blacks and Whites CAN.

Men and Men FAIL.

Women and Women FAIL.

:)

peace...

I believe if you consider marriage a "right" then you shouldn't get to say who's granted the right, unless you're doing so from Religious means which isn't really Democracy.

It is a Right, and I have Explained why... People don't get to Redifine our Natural Existence Exclusively for ONE Deviation from what is just because they want to.

Religion is Irrelevant in my Argument, and in the one Made by the Supreme Court in Loving.

:)

peace...

Our "natural design" is a Monkey. Or wait, stuff before that. "Natural Design" is a pair of hands. A pair of hands can be used for many things, but they're not all legal. Natural design therefore should not govern what's legal and not, because natural design (we have canine toofies) would have us eating...............................each other.

Natural Design, determining law, is a stupid premise.
 
Also, one thing people keep ignoring is that Maine has legal domestic partnerships that grant them all the rights of marriage at the state level. So this is a repudiation of people trying to engineer acceptance of gays through the illusion of "marriage equality", not any substantive benefits.
 
Americans who don't vote the way you want are a mob?

So you don't like democracy and would rather have a judicial dictatorship rule the country??

again.... and again... if left to the voter, we would not have had civil rights for blacks in America. I do not want the rights of the minority trampled by a majority mob.

Then how would you propose that we institute laws in this country? Let everyone do their own thing?

I like that! I would not have to pay anymore in taxes than I want. Works for me!

And technically, the courts will decide these matters, because if a law is passed that is unconstitutional, it will eventually end up in the hands of the courts and they will ultimately make the decision.

Immie


And that's what has been happening and the Right Wing 'Do As We Say, Not As We Do' Crowd starts screaming about activist judges.

Well, in CA, there is a petition out to change ALL legal marriages to civil unions and strike the word "marriage" from all civil laws and documentation. Perhaps that will make the "marriage is religious only" crowd happy. You think?
 
again.... and again... if left to the voter, we would not have had civil rights for blacks in America. I do not want the rights of the minority trampled by a majority mob.

Then how would you propose that we institute laws in this country? Let everyone do their own thing?

I like that! I would not have to pay anymore in taxes than I want. Works for me!

And technically, the courts will decide these matters, because if a law is passed that is unconstitutional, it will eventually end up in the hands of the courts and they will ultimately make the decision.

Immie


And that's what has been happening and the Right Wing 'Do As We Say, Not As We Do' Crowd starts screaming about activist judges.

Well, in CA, there is a petition out to change ALL legal marriages to civil unions and strike the word "marriage" from all civil laws and documentation. Perhaps that will make the "marriage is religious only" crowd happy. You think?

How happy do you think that will make the "marriage equality" pro-gay-marriage crowd?
 
I believe if you consider marriage a "right" then you shouldn't get to say who's granted the right, unless you're doing so from Religious means which isn't really Democracy.

It is a Right, and I have Explained why... People don't get to Redifine our Natural Existence Exclusively for ONE Deviation from what is just because they want to.

Religion is Irrelevant in my Argument, and in the one Made by the Supreme Court in Loving.

:)

peace...

Our "natural design" is a Monkey. Or wait, stuff before that. "Natural Design" is a pair of hands. A pair of hands can be used for many things, but they're not all legal. Natural design therefore should not govern what's legal and not, because natural design (we have canine toofies) would have us eating...............................each other.

Natural Design, determining law, is a stupid premise.

In your Opinion... ;)

It is in Fact a Fact that what Distinguishes Heteros and Homos is the Ability to ProCreate...

A Responsibility that a Civil Society Protects and Sanctions.

But guess what, Homosexuals are also Capable of ProCreation, but only when they Marry Flesh with the Opposite Sex...

As we were Designed to do by Nature.

:)

peace...
 
Can you guys stop using these tired canards alluding to some very generalized notion of equality and fairness?

Do you have a problem with the 'generalized notions' of equality and fairness? If so, what are those problems - as they relate to gay marriage.

Not every public policy issue has to turn on this sort of basic notion of sameness. It's reductive and disingenuous.

Could you clear this statement up for me? I'm simply not sure what you're trying to say.

We don't have marriage benefits for the sole purpose of creating a higher class of person, and it's dishonest to act like all you care about is equality, when you know very well your definition of equality is inclusive to some and exclusive to others.

"Marriage benefits", "higher class of person" ... now I really don't know what you're talking about.

There's never been the unmitigated right to marry whomever you want.

Stating the obvious, ok ...

If you acknowledge that the state (and yes, I'm including the People) has the right to set parameters on marriage, then you acknowledge that 1) it's a matter of social policy and not constitutionally protected civil rights, and 2) that notions of "equality" are largely unrealistic and irrelevant when talking about marriage.

Some could very well argue - and many do - that it indeed is a matter of constitutionally protected civil rights. Do you have your own argument against it?
 
again.... and again... if left to the voter, we would not have had civil rights for blacks in America. I do not want the rights of the minority trampled by a majority mob.

Then how would you propose that we institute laws in this country? Let everyone do their own thing?

I like that! I would not have to pay anymore in taxes than I want. Works for me!

And technically, the courts will decide these matters, because if a law is passed that is unconstitutional, it will eventually end up in the hands of the courts and they will ultimately make the decision.

Immie


And that's what has been happening and the Right Wing 'Do As We Say, Not As We Do' Crowd starts screaming about activist judges.

Well, in CA, there is a petition out to change ALL legal marriages to civil unions and strike the word "marriage" from all civil laws and documentation. Perhaps that will make the "marriage is religious only" crowd happy. You think?

Well, for the last year I have heard a lot of, "we won now you have to wait eight years or more before you get your say back so sit down and shut up."

Personally, I would like the removal of the word "marriage" from all civil laws and documentation. I think it would bring an end to this ridiculous bickering and be a step forward in the fight for equality.

I know as a right winger, I am not supposed to care about equality.

I do believe that marriage is a religious rite and that is why I believe the government should get out of the business of marriage. I also believe, and I will choose the Christian Church because I am a member of that church, that if a particular denomination values the souls of homosexuals and elects to invite homosexuals into their congregations offering them the rite of marriage or even ordaining them, then that is the right of that denomination.

I see nothing unfair with that at all. Do you?

Immie
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top