Watching Maine today.

[maineman]

A few points:


the anti-gay forces (yes on question one) here have tried to make the entire campaign about school curriculum, claiming that if gay marriage is legal that the law will force schools to teach students about gay marriage. They have also said that the law will bring lawsuits on churches who that refuse to perform gay marriage. Our attorney general has come out and called both of those claims totally false.

The pro-gay marriage (no on question one) crowd is REALLY well organized this time. This morning at 7:30, a volunteer knocked on my door, knew my name, knew that I was going to vote their way, and urged me to vote, and offered me a ride to the polls if I needed one.

My wife and I both voted on our way to work... and voted no.

Have you heard who is paying for the ads? I wonder if it is the same group out of Colorado Springs that is paying for the ones here?

I don't know, but I heard on Maine Public Broadcasting that it was a well funded out of state organization.

 

[maineman]

I hear the bolded part a lot....When I do, I ask how many churches have been successfully sued and FORCED to perform interracial marriages and/or interfaith marriages. That's usually when the subject gets changed, but not by me.

No offense, but that's a dumbass question. How many churches have you heard refuse to perform those ceremonies in the first place? Second, there's an actual constitutional amendment protecting religion. That's not what people are talking about. They're worried that once gay marriage becomes the law, the courts will find that it is discriminatory to not perform a same-sex marriage, since even pastors have to be ordained by the state in order to solemnize them. The reason the "gay marriage is a threat to religious freedom" argument persists is because people don't trust gay marriage advocates to truly leave them the **** alone after they get what they want, nor do they trust any governing body or court of law that would force it on them without a vote of the people.

pastors do not have to be ordained by the state. States routinely accept all ordained and licensed ministers.

The Maine law that the lying fundies are trying to overturn with a people's veto specifically states that churches have the right to refuse to perform gay marriages.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

People are messed up. Advertising from out of state about an in state issue.

 

[Sunni Man]

People are messed up. Advertising from out of state about an in state issue.

Stopping homo marriage is a national issue.

But the battle ground is in each individual state.

 

[bodecea]

People are messed up. Advertising from out of state about an in state issue.

A lot of the Utah money that came into CA was in small "strongly encouraged" donations by individuals to skirt any laws or ordinances. And in CA, out of state money can be used on Propositions...just not on Elections of people to office. A fine line, indeed.

 

[indianaboy]

You should never be allowed to vote on the rights others are allowed to have.

Which is exactly what you did in voting for Obama.

 

[bodecea]

You should never be allowed to vote on the rights others are allowed to have.

Which is exactly what you did in voting for Obama.

Um. No. But that was an interesting attempt to bring Obama into this discussion. Thanks for the entertainment.

 

[del]

Indeed they are licensed... but that is so they can sign legal paperwork. Their first loyalty and priority has always been to their faith and their diocese. Do you think any state has legally "punished" a minister for not marrying an interracial or interfaith couple? I would like to hear about it, but I'll tell you right now...that case does not exist.

First of all, I'm not specifically referring to the Catholic church. Second, those hypothetical cases are not analogous to the debate about gay marriage. Someone likely could be punished for not performing a marriage based on race...yes, including a minister. Interfaith is a bit different because there are usually churches to accommodate those of a different religion; besides, that would be, in my opinion, an open-and-shut First Amendment case based on the Free Exercise clause.

And that fear is based on the lies told again and again by anti-gay ministers and sects that know damn well the state can't touch them. So much for that Commandment about "bearing false witness." Not so important after all, is it?

But you're not a mind-reader, fortune-teller, and I doubt you're even a lawyer, so you can't tell them their fears are completely ridiculous and they should cut the crap. How they're supposed to know "damn well" about this...I don't know. These people assume all it would take is some legal jujitsu and a sympathetic, activist judge to rule against them. And yes, it's possible that ruling could be overturned on appeals, or in a higher court, but between bad press and attorney's fees, they might fear they couldn't withstand all of that. So, they'd rather not take the chance on it happening. This is, of course, in addition to their moral objections to homosexuality and gay marriage.

You have every right to call that bullshit. But that's all you can do is insult them for being fearful. You actually can't guarantee them a ******* thing, and neither can the establishment or the activists who are saying, "no honest! We don't want to take anything away from you! We promise!" all while calling them bigots and religious wing nuts.

it's been legal here for 5+ years.
zero cases of churches being sued for refusing to perform a wedding
ceremony.

probably just waiting to lull them into a false sense of security.

 

[stevecox]

I hear the bolded part a lot....When I do, I ask how many churches have been successfully sued and FORCED to perform interracial marriages and/or interfaith marriages. That's usually when the subject gets changed, but not by me.

No offense, but that's a dumbass question. How many churches have you heard refuse to perform those ceremonies in the first place? Second, there's an actual constitutional amendment protecting religion. That's not what people are talking about. They're worried that once gay marriage becomes the law, the courts will find that it is discriminatory to not perform a same-sex marriage, since even pastors have to be ordained by the state in order to solemnize them. The reason the "gay marriage is a threat to religious freedom" argument persists is because people don't trust gay marriage advocates to truly leave them the **** alone after they get what they want, nor do they trust any governing body or court of law that would force it on them without a vote of the people.

pastors do not have to be ordained by the state. States routinely accept all ordained and licensed ministers.

The Maine law that the lying fundies are trying to overturn with a people's veto specifically states that churches have the right to refuse to perform gay marriages.

I was speaking generally when I said "the state", and I know what it says. My point is, the state still retains the ability to strip someone of their ability to marry someone based on it being in violation of marriages the state allows. The argument is, religious liberty isn't justification for not adhering to the law. Of course people are acting oblivious to that reasoning because they're trying to pass gay marriage.

 

[stevecox]

Indeed they are licensed... but that is so they can sign legal paperwork. Their first loyalty and priority has always been to their faith and their diocese. Do you think any state has legally "punished" a minister for not marrying an interracial or interfaith couple? I would like to hear about it, but I'll tell you right now...that case does not exist.

First of all, I'm not specifically referring to the Catholic church. Second, those hypothetical cases are not analogous to the debate about gay marriage. Someone likely could be punished for not performing a marriage based on race...yes, including a minister. Interfaith is a bit different because there are usually churches to accommodate those of a different religion; besides, that would be, in my opinion, an open-and-shut First Amendment case based on the Free Exercise clause.

And that fear is based on the lies told again and again by anti-gay ministers and sects that know damn well the state can't touch them. So much for that Commandment about "bearing false witness." Not so important after all, is it?

But you're not a mind-reader, fortune-teller, and I doubt you're even a lawyer, so you can't tell them their fears are completely ridiculous and they should cut the crap. How they're supposed to know "damn well" about this...I don't know. These people assume all it would take is some legal jujitsu and a sympathetic, activist judge to rule against them. And yes, it's possible that ruling could be overturned on appeals, or in a higher court, but between bad press and attorney's fees, they might fear they couldn't withstand all of that. So, they'd rather not take the chance on it happening. This is, of course, in addition to their moral objections to homosexuality and gay marriage.

You have every right to call that bullshit. But that's all you can do is insult them for being fearful. You actually can't guarantee them a ******* thing, and neither can the establishment or the activists who are saying, "no honest! We don't want to take anything away from you! We promise!" all while calling them bigots and religious wing nuts.

it's been legal here for 5+ years.
zero cases of churches being sued for refusing to perform a wedding
ceremony.

probably just waiting to lull them into a false sense of security.

Catholic Charities was forced to shut its doors because they weren't granted religious exemption from anti-discrimination laws. Like I said, I'm not worried about a church being forced to marry a gay couple. The concept of "religious freedom" goes beyond that with this issue.

 

[del]

First of all, I'm not specifically referring to the Catholic church. Second, those hypothetical cases are not analogous to the debate about gay marriage. Someone likely could be punished for not performing a marriage based on race...yes, including a minister. Interfaith is a bit different because there are usually churches to accommodate those of a different religion; besides, that would be, in my opinion, an open-and-shut First Amendment case based on the Free Exercise clause.



But you're not a mind-reader, fortune-teller, and I doubt you're even a lawyer, so you can't tell them their fears are completely ridiculous and they should cut the crap. How they're supposed to know "damn well" about this...I don't know. These people assume all it would take is some legal jujitsu and a sympathetic, activist judge to rule against them. And yes, it's possible that ruling could be overturned on appeals, or in a higher court, but between bad press and attorney's fees, they might fear they couldn't withstand all of that. So, they'd rather not take the chance on it happening. This is, of course, in addition to their moral objections to homosexuality and gay marriage.

You have every right to call that bullshit. But that's all you can do is insult them for being fearful. You actually can't guarantee them a ******* thing, and neither can the establishment or the activists who are saying, "no honest! We don't want to take anything away from you! We promise!" all while calling them bigots and religious wing nuts.

it's been legal here for 5+ years.
zero cases of churches being sued for refusing to perform a wedding
ceremony.

probably just waiting to lull them into a false sense of security.

Catholic Charities was forced to shut its doors because they weren't granted religious exemption from anti-discrimination laws. Like I said, I'm not worried about a church being forced to marry a gay couple. The concept of "religious freedom" goes beyond that with this issue.

no, they weren't. catholic charities is still open for business; they chose to discontinue adoption services rather than comply with state law, which is their right. they still provide other services.

Catholic Charities stuns state, ends adoptions - The Boston Globe

try again.

 

[bodecea]

Actually, it's very relevant. Shows the direction that public attitudes are shifting over time on gay marriage.

No, not really. It showed that you can get a lot of people to vote for gay marriage if you spend forty million dollars and get Hollywood involved. Prop 22 wasn't the result of an international campaign like Prop 8 was, so in my eyes, that vote was more honest and than this one.

I LIVE in CA and went thru both campaigns. There most certainly was a great deal of outside money involved with Prop 22...but not as much as in Prop H8...so, as is the case thruout the U.S. more and more people are seeing that this is another civil rights issue and that gay Americans are to be treated equally under the law.

You don't like the competition, do you? Back that statement up. Oh, and don't forget the out of state Mormon money and the "FREE" time "voluntarily" donated by churchgoers both in and out of state on this issue.

**** you,

That pretty much sums up your argument, doesn't it?

back yours up. I bet when you go look and see which side raised more, you'll see that No on 8 out-raised Y/8. The Mormon church only gave in-kind donations; members of the church were the ones who gave the most. They also donated to defeat Prop 8. I'm up for any competition you got, and I will win.

You stated quite clearly that the No on H8 people outspent the Yes on H8 Segregationists. You said it...now, bring the stats to prove it. Unless you want to fit right in with the H8 segregationists and their lies.

I move on and multi-task and cannot remember every post made by every person. In other words, your question on another page isn't the end all and be all for me. What post # is your question on and I will try to give it my undivided attention.

You're full of shit.

Nice.
[qutoe]My post was like two posts under your response, and you responded to other posts right under mine. It's #38. You're just biding your time.[/QUOTE]

Well, some people skim. But I will go and read #38 and get back to you on that one pronto.

But....do you plan on continuing to have a potty mouth? Is this the kind of family values supported by those who want to dictate their version of morality on us?

 

[Qball]

I wish people would stop acting Yes on 1ers are the only ones massaging the facts. Here's what "Protect Marriage Equality" has said in opposition to the veto:

"Without marriage equality loving, committed same-sex couples are not recognized as a legal pair. They cannot file taxes jointly, do not have access to health insurance as a family and are not allowed to inherit property at the time of death without the hardship of crushing taxes. Their children are not entitled to all of the rights and protections conferred automatically on a family headed by a married couple."

But there's one problem: just like California, Maine has a pretty expansive domestic partnership statute already in effect. Here's what it says:

Under the law, registered domestic partners are accorded a legal status similar to that of a married person with respect to matters of probate, guardianships, conservatorships, inheritance, protection from abuse, and related matters. The legislation establishes a Domestic Partner Registry housed within the Office of Health Data and Program Management, Bureau of Health of the Department of Health and Human Services.

So it's disingenuous to act like same-sex couples in Maine are without any legal recourse without marriage.

The religious objections they have are a bit more complex than "if gay marriage exists, my church is gonna have to start marrying gay people". Here's their argument:

* refusal by a religious school/organization to offer housing or hire someone in a same sex relationship as an employee to married same sex couple could lead to lawsuits
* professionals, such as doctors, psychologists or counselors, that object to same-sex marriage can face legal problems
* religious-based social service organizations may be subject to lose government funding if they refuse same-sex couples any services or benefits

And here's their reasons given for voting YES on 1:

* preserve the definition of marriage - union between a man and a woman
* maintains the rights and benefits that same-sex couples have under the state's domestic partners law
* children in schools will not be taught that "same-sex marriage" is the same as traditional marriage - union between a man and a woman
* ensures that voters decide on the meaning of marriage and not politicians

The attorney general rebutted the concerns about gay marriage being taught in schools here:

In response to a request by the state's education commissioner Susan Gendron, the attorney general said, "I have scoured Maine laws relating to the education of its children for any references to marriage in the public school curricula. I have found none." According to Mills written opinion she said that the state's standards do not include the teaching of marriage, however, individual school boards "determine the exact content of each district's curricula.

The YES on 1 campaign responded here:

Marc Mutty of the Yes on 1 campaign argued that Mills' statement is a "a shameless political ploy by supporters of homosexual marriage." Mutty added, "Yes on Question 1 has shown -- and our opponents have been forced to acknowledge -- that existing curricula ALREADY create an opportunity for teaching about same-sex relationships under the guise of 'safe schools' instruction. We know, for example, that the Portland schools already show films on gay relationships. What is to stop them from showing films about homosexual marriage if it becomes legal?"

I know it's a "what if?" argument, but at least understand where people are coming from.

Here's where I got all my info: Maine Same-Sex Marriage People's Veto, Question 1 (2009) - Ballotpedia

 

[xotoxi]

I wish people would stop acting Yes on 1ers are the only ones massaging the facts. Here's what "Protect Marriage Equality" has said in opposition to the veto:

"Without marriage equality loving, committed same-sex couples are not recognized as a legal pair. They cannot file taxes jointly, do not have access to health insurance as a family and are not allowed to inherit property at the time of death without the hardship of crushing taxes. Their children are not entitled to all of the rights and protections conferred automatically on a family headed by a married couple."

But there's one problem: just like California, Maine has a pretty expansive domestic partnership statute already in effect. Here's what it says:

Under the law, registered domestic partners are accorded a legal status similar to that of a married person with respect to matters of probate, guardianships, conservatorships, inheritance, protection from abuse, and related matters. The legislation establishes a Domestic Partner Registry housed within the Office of Health Data and Program Management, Bureau of Health of the Department of Health and Human Services.

So it's disingenuous to act like same-sex couples in Maine are without any legal recourse without marriage.

The religious objections they have are a bit more complex than "if gay marriage exists, my church is gonna have to start marrying gay people". Here's their argument:



And here's their reasons given for voting YES on 1:



The attorney general rebutted the concerns about gay marriage being taught in schools here:

In response to a request by the state's education commissioner Susan Gendron, the attorney general said, "I have scoured Maine laws relating to the education of its children for any references to marriage in the public school curricula. I have found none." According to Mills written opinion she said that the state's standards do not include the teaching of marriage, however, individual school boards "determine the exact content of each district's curricula.

The YES on 1 campaign responded here:

Marc Mutty of the Yes on 1 campaign argued that Mills' statement is a "a shameless political ploy by supporters of homosexual marriage." Mutty added, "Yes on Question 1 has shown -- and our opponents have been forced to acknowledge -- that existing curricula ALREADY create an opportunity for teaching about same-sex relationships under the guise of 'safe schools' instruction. We know, for example, that the Portland schools already show films on gay relationships. What is to stop them from showing films about homosexual marriage if it becomes legal?"

I know it's a "what if?" argument, but at leat understand where people are coming from.

Here's where I got all my info: Maine Same-Sex Marriage People's Veto, Question 1 (2009) - Ballotpedia

But what about the mandatory gay week...where everyone will be required by law to have gay sex?

 

[rightwinger]

I wish people would stop acting Yes on 1ers are the only ones massaging the facts. Here's what "Protect Marriage Equality" has said in opposition to the veto:

"Without marriage equality loving, committed same-sex couples are not recognized as a legal pair. They cannot file taxes jointly, do not have access to health insurance as a family and are not allowed to inherit property at the time of death without the hardship of crushing taxes. Their children are not entitled to all of the rights and protections conferred automatically on a family headed by a married couple."

But there's one problem: just like California, Maine has a pretty expansive domestic partnership statute already in effect. Here's what it says:



So it's disingenuous to act like same-sex couples in Maine are without any legal recourse without marriage.

The religious objections they have are a bit more complex than "if gay marriage exists, my church is gonna have to start marrying gay people". Here's their argument:



And here's their reasons given for voting YES on 1:



The attorney general rebutted the concerns about gay marriage being taught in schools here:



The YES on 1 campaign responded here:

Marc Mutty of the Yes on 1 campaign argued that Mills' statement is a "a shameless political ploy by supporters of homosexual marriage." Mutty added, "Yes on Question 1 has shown -- and our opponents have been forced to acknowledge -- that existing curricula ALREADY create an opportunity for teaching about same-sex relationships under the guise of 'safe schools' instruction. We know, for example, that the Portland schools already show films on gay relationships. What is to stop them from showing films about homosexual marriage if it becomes legal?"

I know it's a "what if?" argument, but at leat understand where people are coming from.

Here's where I got all my info: Maine Same-Sex Marriage People's Veto, Question 1 (2009) - Ballotpedia

But what about the mandatory gay week...where everyone will be required by law to have gay sex?

Ahhh....The Slippery Slope argument

 

[xotoxi]

I wish people would stop acting Yes on 1ers are the only ones massaging the facts. Here's what "Protect Marriage Equality" has said in opposition to the veto:



But there's one problem: just like California, Maine has a pretty expansive domestic partnership statute already in effect. Here's what it says:



So it's disingenuous to act like same-sex couples in Maine are without any legal recourse without marriage.

The religious objections they have are a bit more complex than "if gay marriage exists, my church is gonna have to start marrying gay people". Here's their argument:



And here's their reasons given for voting YES on 1:



The attorney general rebutted the concerns about gay marriage being taught in schools here:



The YES on 1 campaign responded here:



I know it's a "what if?" argument, but at leat understand where people are coming from.

Here's where I got all my info: Maine Same-Sex Marriage People's Veto, Question 1 (2009) - Ballotpedia

But what about the mandatory gay week...where everyone will be required by law to have gay sex?

Ahhh....The Slippery Slope argument

I am hoping that they will allow us to make it slippery.

Mandatory dry penetration will just be over the top!

 

[Qball]

it's been legal here for 5+ years.
zero cases of churches being sued for refusing to perform a wedding
ceremony.

probably just waiting to lull them into a false sense of security.

Catholic Charities was forced to shut its doors because they weren't granted religious exemption from anti-discrimination laws. Like I said, I'm not worried about a church being forced to marry a gay couple. The concept of "religious freedom" goes beyond that with this issue.

no, they weren't. catholic charities is still open for business; they chose to discontinue adoption services rather than comply with state law, which is their right. they still provide other services.

Catholic Charities stuns state, ends adoptions - The Boston Globe

try again.

Still, his point is taken that a religious organization was affected by the alleged null outcome of instituting same-sex marriage. You call it a failure to comply with "state law", but that's what people are afraid of: "state law" affecting religious organizations.

 

[xsited1]

No it doesn't. It was a religion, a lying-religion issue. Religions and their lying proponents cross color lines.

I didn't say religion had nothing to do with it. My point was that a large majority of blacks voted for the gay marriage ban. That's a fact and is the point I was making.

And you will find on the demographics that the black people who voted for Prop H8 were the church going ones lied to. The failure to include them in pro-gay marriage canvassing will not be repeated. They should never have been taken for granted.

Lied to? What lie were they told?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

It's all about keeping gay people as second class citizens legally

Boo and hoo-ey...

i guess those guys who can't marry their brother...

...or their three favorite women...

...are also "second class citizens"...?

 

[bodecea]

Indeed they are licensed... but that is so they can sign legal paperwork. Their first loyalty and priority has always been to their faith and their diocese. Do you think any state has legally "punished" a minister for not marrying an interracial or interfaith couple? I would like to hear about it, but I'll tell you right now...that case does not exist.

First of all, I'm not specifically referring to the Catholic church. Second, those hypothetical cases are not analogous to the debate about gay marriage. Someone likely could be punished for not performing a marriage based on race...yes, including a minister.

No, they would not, legally. But I look forward to you pointing out a case where that has happened. Convince me.

Interfaith is a bit different because there are usually churches to accommodate those of a different religion; besides, that would be, in my opinion, an open-and-shut First Amendment case based on the Free Exercise clause.

Any legal issue with a church is an open-and-shut First Amendment case based on the Free Exercise clause (as long as no one is doing anything CRIMINALLY illegal)

And that fear is based on the lies told again and again by anti-gay ministers and sects that know damn well the state can't touch them. So much for that Commandment about "bearing false witness." Not so important after all, is it?

But you're not a mind-reader, fortune-teller, and I doubt you're even a lawyer, so you can't tell them their fears are completely ridiculous and they should cut the crap.

They are being blatantly and systematically lied to by those forces who want to scare people into buying their crap. And more and more people are realizing that it is crap....thus the differences in states allowing legal gay marriage today compared to 10 years ago...twenty years ago, etc.

How they're supposed to know "damn well" about this...I don't know. These people assume all it would take is some legal jujitsu and a sympathetic, activist judge to rule against them. And yes, it's possible that ruling could be overturned on appeals, or in a higher court, but between bad press and attorney's fees, they might fear they couldn't withstand all of that. So, they'd rather not take the chance on it happening. This is, of course, in addition to their moral objections to homosexuality and gay marriage.

So...let me get this straight. You think that people have a legitimate right to vote on MY civil rights as a law abiding, tax paying citizen because some sue happy yahoo in the fantasy future MIGHT try to sue (unsuccessfully) some church that doesn't want to marry them? How nice. Can we vote on YOUR civil rights using the same criteria?

You have every right to call that bullshit. But that's all you can do is insult them for being fearful.

Insult them? You bet. It's not YOUR civil rights at stake over the superstitious fears of people who have no business making my civil rights a popularity contest.

You actually can't guarantee them a ******* thing, and neither can the establishment or the activists who are saying, "no honest! We don't want to take anything away from you! We promise!" all while calling them bigots and religious wing nuts.

I can guarantee them the 1st Amendment of the Constitution AND the systematic history of the government NEVER forcing churches to marry people they do not wish to marry based on the very reasons that government would not be able to reject people over.

That Justice of the Peace in LA is in big trouble over rejecting an interracial couple's marriage license. A minister doing the same thing is not even news...nor should it be.


****Apologies for any pain and suffering you may have experienced waiting for my reply. Occasionally, real life intrudes. Please don't sue me.