Maine voters repeal gay-marriage law

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 10:34 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".


Actually, we live in a Republic where the law rules. You opinion of gay people is fairly apparent but opinion doesn't matter when it comes to the law. If you were to ask me, I'd say that refusing to let gay people get married is unconstitutional and therefore illegal.

I'm sure the next time the government legislates and restricts your freedoms you'll be wanting all the support you can get.




posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seiko
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.



How is this relevant to the vote at all? Are gays being invaded? No. Does this vote have anything to do with prevention of domestic violence? No.




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.


Yes we do. Take apart Amendment 14, Section 1 line by line, word by word if you have to, starting with "No state..."

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

What privilege or immunity is being taken away by this vote? The term "marriage" has not even been defined by a legislature other than a union between a man and a woman, so you can't say "the privilege of gays to marry". You might say "the privilege of gays to enter into a same sex union", but even the term "union" hasn't been defined by a legislature in this context.

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

No one is being threatened with incarceration, death, reduction of freedom or having their property taken away because of this vote.

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This vote does nothing like that. In fact, did Obama not just extend the hate crimes law to include gays?



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
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!



You would say the same thing if Obama were defeated in 2012. "Yay! America strikes a victory for racism!"

Honestly, can you be any more dramatic and overreactive?




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]


Ooooh watch out you guys - if you happen to disagree with gay marriage you might end up on BH's LIST!!! BEWARE!!!



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by sos37
 


The first part was in reference to the poster stating we lived in a democracy. The quote was to show that the federal government extends republican rule.


My interpretation of the 14th amendment obviously differs from your own. We are talking about passing a law that excludes a certain segment of the populace from exercising a right afforded to others. I find this relevant under the equal clause.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 11:14 AM
link   
The people of Maine have spoken and their vote should be respected.

You may not like it, you may disagree with it, but it still has to be respected.

It is no different than when politicians win office. The losing side has to accept it.

Until and if a court intervenes, there is nothing much one can do but complain, label, and criticize fellow voters from another state.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seiko
reply to post by sos37
 


The first part was in reference to the poster stating we lived in a democracy. The quote was to show that the federal government extends republican rule.


My interpretation of the 14th amendment obviously differs from your own. We are talking about passing a law that excludes a certain segment of the populace from exercising a right afforded to others. I find this relevant under the equal clause.


I understand the equal protection clause and I understand that its interpretation has been a source of debate for a long time. "Equal protection under the law" in my interpretation applies to properties of individuals that they are born with - race and gender, for example. Black people are born black and they don't change in the course of their lifetime to being White or Asian.

So what about gays? You can argue that SOME gays are born that way, but can you prove it beyond a reasonable doubt? Can you prove it scientifically? What about those in the gay population that used to be straight and turned gay or those who were gay and turned straight? How can you argue that someone like this was born straight when they turn out to be gay halfway through their lives?

Isn't a more likely explanation that some gays might be born that way and others are gay because of their upbringing, environment or because of a traumatic experience in their lives? As I said before, no one turns into a caucasian because of their upbringing or environment.

If that's the case, then how can you argue rights for a "social class" of people that can't even put a solid definition on who they are and how they same to be that way?

There is a huge difference in race and gender versus being gay.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 


Funny, this is what the Obama-ites told us when he won the 2008 election. "America has spoken."

Now that the tables have turned slightly, they aren't willing to practice what they preached.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by sos37
 





So what about gays? You can argue that SOME gays are born that way, but can you prove it beyond a reasonable doubt? Can you prove it scientifically? What about those in the gay population that used to be straight and turned gay or those who were gay and turned straight? How can you argue that someone like this was born straight when they turn out to be gay halfway through their lives?


Can you prove scientifically that they are not?

The supreme court ruled that choice in marriage was above race. I quoted that earlier in the thread. A White person could simply choose not to marry a black person. A gay person could simply choose not to marry a same sex partner. But you offer no choice here. This is not what their decision represented. Their decision stated that the ability to choose went beyond the accepted definition of the populace at the time because of their interpretation of the 14th amendment. I see this as very evident. Whether gay is in fact a choice, or a thing you are born gay is not relevant to the option of having that choice. This is about equality under the law.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by sos37
reply to post by jam321
 


Funny, this is what the Obama-ites told us when he won the 2008 election. "America has spoken."

Now that the tables have turned slightly, they aren't willing to practice what they preached.



The exact point I was trying to make with "seiko" earlier. But it seems many on the left would rather go find a liberal judge to decide for ALL of us rather than follow the constitutional (state and federal) laws and processes that have been set up for us.

And if they want to hide behind the "equal protection clause", it is there to protect the majority from special interest groups and the opinions of small minorities just as much as it is there to protect those groups.

Going back to the founding of this country, a minority of people here still preferred having a king. But a majority of the people and through their elected representatives wanted otherwise.

One other thing to take into consideration when looking back at history is did the elected representatives back then ignore their constituents wishes as freely as they seem to do now?



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 11:40 AM
link   
You keep calling "Gay Marriage" a Right... it is not.


Government law treats ALL as individuals, by this token, Homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else.


When you say "Gay Marriage Rights" what you really mean, is the Privilege of having the government give you a tax break because of who you are being "Intimate" with.

The government is not obligated to provide this supposed "Right" to anyone.

The argument is redundant.

-Edrick



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by vor78
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]


I would be fine with government not recognizing marriage altogether. At least that is equal. I have to disagree with the rest of your post though. Giving equal rights to all people shouldn't require the majority of people to be in support of it. As someone else said, that is mob rule. What just happened in Maine is that they allowed the slight majority of the people to decide that homosexuals shouldn't have the same rights as everyone else. How can you justify that?



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


The founders were not elected in our system, because it did not exist at the time, hence founding.

Yes the civil rights movement was passed against the wishes of the states mostly affected by it. The equal clause is about protecting minorities, not majorities. If it were the way you stated, the law would have no meaning, because the majority would just vote how they feel. The equal clause is a protection against the rights of the minority being trampled by majority opinion.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seiko
reply to post by sos37
 





So what about gays? You can argue that SOME gays are born that way, but can you prove it beyond a reasonable doubt? Can you prove it scientifically? What about those in the gay population that used to be straight and turned gay or those who were gay and turned straight? How can you argue that someone like this was born straight when they turn out to be gay halfway through their lives?


Can you prove scientifically that they are not?



The fact that a gay man might turn straight at some point in his life or a straight man might turn gay at point in his life generates enough reasonable doubt.

Show me a certain type of man that can into a woman or a certain race of person that can change into another race and then the comparisons would be on the same lines.



This is about equality under the law.


That's my point exactly. When you write law you must define everything! The legislature hasn't adequately defined gays or gay unions yet!

My point is, if they want to make headway on the issue they need the legislature to start changing the definitions of current laws and quit being so generalized with the wording. Generalization leads to misinterpretation!



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Seiko
 


If you don't want to accept that the will of the people has been made clear, you have another option - "voting with your feet". There must be other states or even other countries that already have laws that follow your beliefs. Isn't that how Europeans decided to come here in the first place?

Think about it. Should a small minority perhaps go where they feel more welcome, or should that small minority try and force everyone else to bow to their wishes? Where is the "equal protection" in that attitude?



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Bosko
 


I'm not really attempting to justify it. There's a reason why democracy is called 'the tyranny of the majority.' I don't have kids and I wish the voters in my state wouldn't approve higher millage rates every couple of years to pay for the state department of education. I still pay it, though, even though its of no use to me. I don't want to be forced to buy health insurance, either, but it looks like I'm going to get to do that as well.

It isn't necessarily fair, but nothing else is, either. That said, I would much rather see a public vote on the issue than a bunch of dipsticks in DC decide that one shoe fits all for the entire country on most any issue such as this.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by sos37
 


They will not touch it for another generation. They will evade and do everything in their power not to weigh in on this.

I stated earlier the law on marriage in many states was vague, and there was no way to argue for excluding gays because of this. So when faced with the choice the legislature has to opt for the decision of allowing it. Then the states create a bill/referendum to actually overwrite the laws in the state defining marriage.

I support the earlier point of simply taking the government out of marriage until they can be bothered to actually weigh the legal ramifications of these arguments. I don't believe that federal government can find against gay marriage because of the 14th so they will let the states decide now. I do believe eventually the states will overturn these laws on their own.

I would very much like to hear an argument against gay marriage that is not based on religious conviction. One that holds up to the test as making it so different from other marriages.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   
You people are ALL looking at this the WRONG WAY!

This is NOT about Gay Rights, or the "Sanctity" of marriage...

It is about the Federal Government having authority over your Personal Relationships.


You want to pass an amendment to Protect marriage?

You want to pass an amendment defending Gay Rights to marriage?


Either way.... congratulations, by the powers of the 10th 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.)

You have just given the Federal Government power over your Relationships!


Can someone say "False Left Right Paradigm"?

-Edrick



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


My "beliefs" as you call them are founded in the very laws of this government we're discussing. I'm not discussing imposing beliefs, I am discussing law.

Beliefs have no place in the law books. A law is either equal and all abide by it, or it is found to be unconstitutional.

I shall fight with every breath I have to assure that we all have the same rights afforded to us regardless of the issue.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   
personally i dont think they should be able to wed. not because their gay but because i believe the issue is more them trying to get the benefits of being married. you dont have to get married to love someone, so why do they want it? tho i also think that people should be able to be free and do whatevr it is they want to do, we dont live in lala land, we live on earth. if your a student of history you would know that when the structure of the family becomes corrupt and in disrepair, that ultimately the dominos start to fall and eventually so does your civilization. as far as what someone said about stupid people knocking up other stupid people... if they didnt do it, then there wouldnt be any homoesexuals period. you need a man and a woman to have offspring.. you need only look at the laws of nature to realize that you cant have two mothers... or two fathers... im not sure why sexual oreintation has become a social issue. its your preference of sex, not a race or an ethnicity... how is this an issue at all?



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 


As I said earlier, the easiest solution to the issue is to eliminate the government at all levels from the equation. The way you do that is by eliminating marriage as a state-recognized institution. By doing that, you turn it into an internal debate among churches and other private institutions that sanction and perform marriages, but it keeps this crap out of the political sphere, which is where it *doesn't* belong.

And as I said before, neither the Dems or GOP will go for that, because both of them use it to drive voters to the polling booth.





 
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join