Maine voters repeal gay-marriage law

I don't see why gays would be so dead-set on being able to use a word apparently copyrighted by individuals who seem to wake up with the intent on speaking hatred against them. I think they just want the same rights.

As for gays being completely unable to reproduce.... What is up with that claim? This is 2009, many gay and lesbian couples have found ways to get around this popular misconception to get what they want.
So, seriously, I don't even see how people can assume they are inferior just because they won't 'accidentally' end up with offspring that this world does not want or need.

If a gay couple WANTS a kid, they will have one. (Yes, this is a slap in the face to those who claim reproduction is a "right" reserved only for who they consider 'worthy')
There is the difference between gay and not. No accidental unwanted offspring will ever be born to gays, only kids that will come into the world wanted and loved.


Please don't ask me to get more specific on how this is physically done.... Use a search if you must.

EDIT: Edit for clarity.

[edit on 4-11-2009 by LostNemesis]

I'm almost surprised at how hostile people are about something that has absolutely no consequence to their personal life. First of all, it's a just a word. Also, it has nothing to do with the continuation of our species. Here's a question for you: Is it possible to have children without being married? If the answer is yes, then it's quite possible to continue the human race without being married. I wonder how our species survived so long when that word or even the concept of marriage didn't even exist for tens or even maybe hundreds of thousands of years. The notion that "protecting" marriage is critical to our survival is ridiculous at best. I'm quite certain heterosexual people will continue to procreate even if homosexual people are given the right to marry. Please explain your position on this one littlebunny, because I just don't get it.

Marriage is a legal contract in the eyes of the government, or at least it should be seen only as that. If other people choose to impart a deeper meaning upon it then that is their choice.

The fact of the matter is that by denying homosexuals the same rights as the rest of us, we are treating them as if they are not human.

I don't give a damn what your religion says or what your own personal opinion of homosexuality is, it's sick and wrong to treat other people as if they are less than human and deny them equal rights because you disagree with what sex they are attracted to.

reply to post by Bosko


I disagree. As I said in the thread last night, the easiest way to solve this problem is to have the government stop recognizing marriage altogether. I am against same-sex marriage on religious grounds, among other things. That said, I do not care one bit what two consenting adults do in their own home. The issue I have is that by recognizing it through government, you're basically forcing me to recognize and support something that, for a variety of reasons, I simply can't. Eliminate the governmental recognition of marriage and it becomes a completely private issue between two consenting adults, the marrying institution and the Almighty. At that point, I really don't care what you do. If you can justify it, knock yourself out.

Of course, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans would ever go along with that for the simple reason that it makes a great wedge issue.

[edit on 4-11-2009 by vor78]

reply to post by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest


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

Homosexual "marriage" IS different. I personally don't care one way or the other - none of my business - but to say homosexual marriage is not different from heterosexual marriages is just ridiculous. Of course, it's different because it is two guys/gals getting married.

My question as always been why the heck anybody - homosexual or hetrosexual - would want to get married and make the state a third party in their marriage! And that is exactly what happens when folks get married!

As a Mainer, I am nor particularly in favor or against it. I could care less.
So could most Mainers.

The vote was mostly split among city/rural. Portland reported early and "No on 1" was way ahead. As the rest of the state trickled in the repeal gained.

The "Yes on 1" (repeal gay marriage) group focused on linking gay marriage with teaching gay marriage in the schools. I don't really know how people fell for this contrived linkage, but it was very effective. Like I said, most people could care less, but were concerned it would somehow become school curricula. This linkage was very weak, I am disappointed most Mainers fell for it. It is not like there are "teaching" traditional marriage in schools.

No on 1 was extremely annoying, they spammed my inbox and spammed my mailbox. There was not a single event this season I could attend without someone sticking a No on 1 petition in my face. Live and let live goes both ways folks.

Also the Governor and Southern District US Rep were both outspokenly against the repeal. People do not care for either of them very much, they hurt their cause. If Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins were against the repeal more people would have voted No.

Anyway, that is what is going on in Maine.

Yay! Maine strikes a victory for bigotry! Y'all should be proud! If there's one thing that will encourage the bigots to get out the vote, it's the threat of two people who love each other getting equal rights under the law!

Originally posted by IAF101
Its ridiculous to have "marriage" between people who can never build a family by themselves.

So, you're saying that my marriage to my opposite-sex partner is "ridiculous" because we cannot possibly have children?

Originally posted by IAF101
Because we live in a democracy where majority rules!

Um... No we don't. We live in a Representative REPUBLIC. (say the pledge of allegiance to yourself and see if that helps jog your memory... "And to the REPUBLIC for which it stands"...)

These statements here show me the type of people who are against gay marriage. Thanks for confirming my suspicions.



[edit on 4-11-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]

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.

But this IS a representative democracy with majority rule (in spite of what BH says above). And majority rule only works for you as long as you agree with the outcome, such as obama's election? Hypocrisy alert!

Ignorant masses? Is everyone that doesn't agree with your own "exalted" points of view a member of the "ignorant masses"?

But I can guess why you want the courts to handle this issue. They've been filled with liberal judges that feel that they should legislate from the bench on issues that liberals can't get voters to approve.



[edit on 11/4/2009 by centurion1211]

reply to post by Mainer


This same tactic seemed to be as effective in other states.

as to the the thread;

It's interesting to think that if we allowed a vote on all rights of people, this country would be a very different place. If the people could show that the marriage issue had in some way affected them, I'd understand this more.

The idea of a representative democracy was to protect the minority from domination by a majority rule. I feel we have failed.

The Founding Fathers of the United States rarely praised and often criticized democracy, which in their time tended to specifically mean direct democracy; James Madison argued, especially in The Federalist No. 10, that what distinguished a democracy from a republic was that the former became weaker as it got larger and suffered more violently from the effects of faction, whereas a republic could get stronger as it got larger and combats faction by its very structure. What was critical to American values, John Adams insisted, was that the government be "bound by fixed laws, which the people have a voice in making, and a right to defend." As Benjamin Franklin was exiting after writing the U.S. constitution, a woman asked him Sir, what have you given us?. He replied A republic ma'am, if you can keep it.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

So, you're saying that my marriage to my opposite-sex partner is "ridiculous" because we cannot possibly have children?

I was going to ask the same question. I chose to have a vasectomy a few weeks ago so apparently I should now give up the right to be married as well.

I guess I am at a loss on how people could oppose gay marriage. True love is hard enough to find and if 2 people have that love then who am I to judge them no matter who their partner is?

This entire debate makes me feel like we just got transported back to the 50's.

Originally posted by Seiko

The idea of a representative democracy was to protect the minority from domination by a majority rule. I feel we have failed.

This is absolutely false. Go back and retake Government 101.

The idea of any democracy is to protect the people from the tyranny of a minority.

Don;t get it? I your statement was correct, the group or candidate with the least votes on any issue would be declared the winner of an election.

[edit on 11/4/2009 by centurion1211]

reply to post by centurion1211


Re-read my words, we have a republic, in the form of a representative democracy. If you're trying to tell me that this is equal to mob rule, you're the one who needs a refresher course.

What you refer to is a direct democracy, we are not one.

reply to post by Seiko


Actually ...

Go back and re-read my post - I've added a paragraph to help you understand.

reply to post by centurion1211


The concept of how we vote for our representatives has nothing to do with equal rights and the majority overriding the basic concept of equal under the law.

The maine legislature interpreted that law and found no legal reason to deny same sex marriage. Then an amendment to make that law was voted on. These are two very separate things.

I do not stand with the crowd when I feel it is wrong. What you propose is that we can as a people decide which people have which rights and which ones do not. This is an inherently flawed argument.

U.S. constitution article 4, section 4

Republican government The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

U.S. Constitution amendment 14

1. 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.

We have a disconnection here.

reply to post by Seiko


Seriously, what does the expression "the will of the people" mean to you?

To me, it means that a majority of citizens voting for what they feel is right - whether special interest groups agree or not.

The exact purpose of representative democracy is to protect the majority from special interest groups - you know, the backbone of the democrat party.

[edit on 11/4/2009 by centurion1211]

reply to post by centurion1211


I feel you're entirely wrong, if we wanted that we would have a direct democracy.

"Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression." Thomas Jefferson

As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865)

Tyranny and despotism can be exercised by many, more rigorously, more vigorously, and more severely, than by one. Andrew Johnson

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. U.S. supreme court

I wonder, if people were allowed to vote on civil rights in the 60's, if black people would be allowed to vote in the South.

Would I be sitting in the "whites only" section when I go out to eat?

In 1920, if Suffrage for women was put to a vote, would men vote in the majority for it?


It really surprises me when people advocate "mob rule" in America, while at the same time completely ignoring everything our forefathers had considered when founding this nation.

A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.

-Thomas Jefferson


I hope those of you who support measures like this will someday grow to realize why people should never be allowed to vote on the rights of others.

The minority will always be inferior. They will never have equal representation in law. Thus is the very essence of being a minority. Our country's laws were designed to empower the minority; to give them a voice where they would otherwise have none.

When we allow the majority to vote away the rights of the minority, we have failed the founders of this nation.

Thomas Jefferson is rolling in his grave.

reply to post by Seiko


How can I be "wrong" about this. The process that allows people to directly vote on issues like this in the states is part of the constitutions of those states, and as such, perfectly legal. Now if you disagree with that process, your remedy is to start a popular movement to have those laws changed.

Of course, you'll also have to learn to live with defeat if you can't get a majority of whoever it takes to change the laws to agree with you.

Hopefully, you now see how it works - and is supposed to work.

reply to post by centurion1211


Because the states constitution cannot override the federal constitution. And the 14th amendment declares equal protection under the law.

GOOD


america may not be totally lost marriage is for family


JUST MY "2 CENts