Maine voters repeal gay-marriage law

page: 1
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 01:00 AM
link   

PORTLAND, Maine - Maine voters on Tuesday torpedoed a state law that would have allowed same-sex couples to marry, a heartbreaking defeat for the gay rights movement, particularly since it occurred in a corner of the country most supportive of gay marriage.

With 84 percent of the precincts reporting, gay-marriage foes had 53 percent of the vote Tuesday.


www.msnbc.msn.com...

Well, there it is. Honestly, I'm not surprised that this is how it turned out. According to the story:


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.


I guess the general populace just isn't ready to accept this yet. At least not until the Baby Boomers die off completely.

[edit on 4-11-2009 by sos37]




posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by sos37
 




I guess the general populace just isn't ready to accept this yet. At least not until the Baby Boomers die off completely.


Baby boomers, huh?

Did it occur to you that once they are all gone, there will be another generation coming in just behind them, entering that same cranky old age regime?

Stereotyping is not a lot unlike racial bigotry... except instead of skin color, something else just as superficial is put in its place... in this case, age.

Best.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 01:09 AM
link   
stupid. stupid. STUPID. ugh.

why is it again that people are allowed to vote on social issues?
(facetious)

what good reason is there to vote against this?



[edit on 4-11-2009 by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest]



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest
stupid. stupid. STUPID. ugh.

why is it again that people are allowed to vote on social issues?

what good reason is there to vote against this?


Personally, I think it is a good subject for a vote because it's far less dangerous than letting the sheep decide something like foreign policy, lol!

My theory is that the gay community will eventually get the the right to wed but... they should be careful what they wish for. There's a whole new generation of divorce lawyer out there just chomping at the bit.



+19 more 
posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 01:15 AM
link   
Hallelujah !! Finally New England's electorate has some semblance of sanity! Its ridiculous to have "marriage" between people who can never build a family by themselves.

One good thing about Obama in office is that it's a whole lot easier to beat the liberals when they think they have already won!


+2 more 
posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest
 


I have a very good reason why they didn't vote for it.

They don't agree with it.

The people spoke and as usual, the minority doesn't agree with it. Can't please everyone.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by IAF101
 


I wonder how that high divorce rate works out for the much-touted (but oh so overrated) nuclear family unit?

Let's just face it: This is an issue best left up to the courts, not the ignorant masses.


+4 more 
posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Janitor From Mars
 


Leave it up to the courts so that they can pass things that the majority doesn't agree with?

Funny how everyone wants the government to stay out of our lives, but when things don't go the way we want them we want them to step in.


+3 more 
posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest
stupid. stupid. STUPID. ugh.

why is it again that people are allowed to vote on social issues?
(facetious)

what good reason is there to vote against this?


Why ? Because we live in a democracy where majority rules! Just because there are some people who like to indulge their perverse persuasions doesnt mean all the sane folk should shut up and take it day in and day out! Making people gag every time they walk down the street or go to the store!

This vote give more incentive for Gays and homosexuals to move to Canada or Europe to "marry".



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Janitor From Mars
reply to post by IAF101
 


I wonder how that high divorce rate works out for the much-touted (but oh so overrated) nuclear family unit?

Let's just face it: This is an issue best left up to the courts, not the ignorant masses.



Oh right, some stranger with a law degree and a personal political agenda is fine to vote on this but the people of this nation who have to live with the choices are not capable of deciding their own fate! Not in America.

And what has divorce in heterosexual families got to do with this vote? At least the heterosexual family can produce offspring and further the human species- something a homosexual couple could never do by themselves ever! So your attempts to malign the heterosexual families with the perversity and the outright mockery that is homosexual marriage is admission of how wrong it is at best and a futile attempt to obfuscate from the real issue at worst!

[edit on 4-11-2009 by IAF101]


+3 more 
posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101
At least the heterosexual family can produce offspring and further the human species- something a homosexual couple could never do by themselves ever!
[edit on 4-11-2009 by IAF101]


You make it sound like reproducing is a good thing? Just cause an idiot has the ability to knock up another idiot, doesn't mean they should have at it. When gays marry, nobody but them must deal with the 'consequences'.

When heterosexuals breed out of control, we all must put up with the loud, disgusting offspring wherever we go.

What is so magnificent about one human suing another for half of their paycheck for the rest of their natural lives, just because they forgot a condom one night?

As for the courts... Who do YOU believe should decide who can marry who, the CHURCH?? Gotta be kidding. The church needs to be painfully KICKED out of our social issues.

Nobody should decide who can marry who, except for those getting married. In a case like this, since RELIGION has claimed all rights to the word 'marriage', let's get the state out of it and make sure that 'Marriage' is nothing but a religious ceremony. For anyone who wants their relationship to be recognized by the state/insurance/etc... We should call it a 'Civil Union' or something, whether homo or hetero.
This way the church can KEEP their prejudiced Jesus-worshipping ceremonies to themselves. The state cannot regulate religious-types. Religious-types cannot regulate the rest of us. It's a Win-Win.

[edit on 4-11-2009 by LostNemesis]



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101
Why ? Because we live in a democracy where majority rules! Just because there are some people who like to indulge their perverse persuasions doesnt mean all the sane folk should shut up and take it day in and day out! Making people gag every time they walk down the street or go to the store!

This vote give more incentive for Gays and homosexuals to move to Canada or Europe to "marry".


Wow. That's almost unbelievable that you feel that way, almost. How sad for you.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 01:52 AM
link   
reply to post by IAF101
 


right....right....

you sound like a nice loving person. i bet you built a LOVELY home.

ps. look up the word facetious.

oh yes them gays be makin out all over creation. its good they voted this way because now, without being married, they cant make out


from the T&C

2) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive, hateful, intolerant, bigoted and/or racist manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.


Bored To Tears: your argument isnt as profound as you probably think it is.
its obvious i wanted to know what reason they have for thinking that way. i wasnt under the impression that they voted in a way inconsistent with their beliefs.





[edit on 4-11-2009 by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest]



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest
stupid. stupid. STUPID. ugh.

why is it again that people are allowed to vote on social issues?
(facetious)

what good reason is there to vote against this?



[edit on 4-11-2009 by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest]



Because it contains the word MARRIAGE... Marriage signifies the continuation of the human race, homosexuals do not. However, if you change that one word to UNIONS... with all the same rights as a married male/female I guaran-damn-tee it will pass.

I will fight the word marriage with every ounce of my soul, however, I will defend the right for unions with the same type of conviction.

BTW what gives homosexuals the right to force their wants onto the entire population? It is freaken disgustingly sad the double standards homosexuals demand we let them get away with… Just because men like to have sex with other men, and just because women like to have sex with other women… some how their sexual appetites gives them more rights and more wanton power then heterosexuals people? Who simply want to protect a sacred word, Marriage, that truly does equal our guaranteed survival… Change the word to Union and you even get my vote… Keep the word Marriage and prepare for a very long, long, generation after generation fight!

--Charles Marcello



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101

Why ? Because we live in a democracy where majority rules! Just because there are some people who like to indulge their perverse persuasions doesnt mean all the sane folk should shut up and take it day in and day out! Making people gag every time they walk down the street or go to the store!

This vote give more incentive for Gays and homosexuals to move to Canada or Europe to "marry".


AMEN and DAMN RIGHT!.... How sad that there are those who disagree with what you wrote... How truly sad!


--Charles Marcello



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by littlebunny

Originally posted by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest
stupid. stupid. STUPID. ugh.

why is it again that people are allowed to vote on social issues?
(facetious)

what good reason is there to vote against this?



[edit on 4-11-2009 by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest]



BTW what gives homosexuals the right to force their wants onto the entire population?

you are hilarious.

BTW what gives the religious the right to force their wants onto the entire population?



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest

BTW what gives the religious the right to force their wants onto the entire population?





And so are you.... hahahaha... ptth!

I am not a religious person, I am a common sense person... I noticed and I am sure everyone else does too, you removed all the common sense to try and spin your whatever to make me appear a religious whatever... And I am damn sure Democrats and Independents alike had to vote against that ridiculously named HomoSexual Marriage thingy... And I am willing to bet apples for doughnuts its because of the WORD MARRIAGE... change the damn word and get what you want... keep it and lets keep fighting... because I for one will not budge one centimeter...period!


--Charles Marcello



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:42 AM
link   
reply to post by littlebunny
 


ok my apologies, the defending of marriage as sacred is usually held by the religious. that along with your use of other religious terms caused me to believe that. im sorry.

i dont have any damn clue why you brought up politcal ideologies



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:46 AM
link   
Hello all, perhaps a new voice of reason?

First of all I may be a catholic and a married person. However I am for gay marriage.

I put forward that the use of the word "marriage" may be under complete control of the church and by such not be up for use to a group outside thier standards. Now as such they do not control "union", "combining", "pairing"... the list goes on. PICK ONE! Now since mariage is no longer threatened by the "gays" we have nothing to fear of thier union. If they chose to go through a union they then warrant all the same benifits of anyone who is married. NO? Ok well lets look at this point.
First here in Canada we have common law "marriages" person one is a male named 1. person 2 is female named 2.

So 1 lives on his own for 5 years and pays taxes and the bills and everything. He is single. person 2 lives the same life for 5 years. Now person 1 looses his job and needs a roomate, he has 2 choices person 2 or person 3 who is also a male. If he choses person 3 he lives with them and pays his bills and taxes as if he is still single. No mater how long they remain roomates. However he doesn't get to enjoy the benifits if person 3 dies (such as insurance collection or death benificiary). Now if person 1 choses person 2, he can after 1 year(6 months in some places) chose to live under common law "marriage". They get to share taxes and gain death benifits and everything. If person 2 has a baby with a boyfriend or some one night stand. They get child support and the person 1 gets to have time off for the birth of the child even if not the father. These people do not need to be living as a couple (as in comsumated), just under the same roof and chose this life style.

Now we look at the marriage lifestyle. You gain the benifit of well taxes, death benifits, baby time off.... Pretty much all the same as living together .Except a piece of paper that costs married people money to recieve.

So now why couldn't these gay couples enjoy the same benifits if they stay with the same lover for 25 years. Why shouldn't they gain the death benifit if thier loved one dies? Or be allowed to gain the insurance as a married couple?

Now lets look at this baby stuff (the part making them not allowed to be married since they cant reproduce) Now 1 side of the line say the can't reproduce and they are bad and they should be crucified (bare with me tran-les-gay people) Now first off. if you allow them to get married they will not have children. Point one for you bashers is that they will die off without passing on thier gay genes. Point two if they adopt a baby then that child may grow up gay, or may not, but if it's passed on by genes then it is going to be gay anyway. So why not allow an unused baby to find a loving home ( yes not all gay couples will have a good home, but we have bad apples in our group too) Point 3 those gay people wont be in your bars possibly hitting on you anymore since they will be taken and be at home.

Now tran-les-gays. you get to have your marriage, what benifit does it give you? If you love someone enough a piece of paper doesn't matter. If it's the wedding then just have one of your friends rent a judge costume and do a ceremony for you. Then rent a huge ball room and have a celebration that will bring you into poverty for 20 years to pay it back. Then print up a mariage certificate and write your names on it. It isnt legal but it has all the same thinsg that a regular marriage has.

Now you want it legal. Well instead of asking for your people to gain the "marriage" aim lower and say perhaps give me the word union OR Perhaps just give me the benifits of insurance, time off if we addopt (which even non married people get if they addopt.) Also give us the benifits upon death if we love each other and if the partner writes it in his or her will.

Now if you love each other and you failed this vote and people are laughing at you it shouldnt matter cause you still have each other.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:52 AM
link   
reply to post by anubis9311
 


wow. polite discourse on something controversial? where am i?

i think the main problem with calling it different is tht it will be seen as different, obviously something less.

what im confused about is why the term marriage is so strongly "defended" if the people "defending" are willing to grant the same rights as marriage. to rephrase, i dont understand why people are ok with calling it a union, but once it becomes marriage it is something to be against?




top topics
 
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join