I'm at a loss. This is so sad.

Or...this is so indicative of vote-tampering...

One or the other.

i dont see the sadness...

rather i see democracy in action...

sorry to those that thought it would fly, i knew it wouldnt though.

i really dont care one way or the other. but looks like when the left pushes the right on too many issues, the right comes out of the woodwork and cuts off everything the right thought they were going to get.

all of these socialists programs have awaken a firestorm.

I don't really think vote tampering was an issue. I think there is still just way too much prejudice. This is a case where it shouldn't be up to the states. The President should be able to give rights to groups of oppressed people without the say of prejudice homophobic voters. This is a clear case of the democratic process failing the American people.

Actually, I think most Americans wouldn't care about this issue one way or the other. I have spoken to many people about this over the years and the most common answer is "if they want to get married and be as miserable as the rest of us, more power to em!".

The reason these votes go sour is because the religious coalitions out there are very good at scare tactics, such as what Snarf illustrated. They can take an indifferant neutral person and make them into a scared homophobic monkey with the right placement of words.

Technically it worked, but clearly homosexuals are disenfranchised. Could you imagine if the right for interracial couples was repealed like that one preacher wanted? Why does marriage even have such a sanctimonious connotation to begin with? It's not like there aren't secular marriages in this country. Doesn't that infringe on the sanctity of marriage as well?

[edit on 5-11-2009 by The Transhumanist]

Are the voters of Maine "vehemently" opposed to same sex marriage, just because they oppose it? I am pro same sex marriage, and I would be insulted if someone considered me vehemently pro same sex marriage just because I support it or vote for it.

I realize the Democrat Party is basically pro gay marriage and the Republican party it basically anit gay marriage. Um. Democrat Party, this is democracy at work, yes?

So, anyway, go lick your wounds, pro gay marriage folks, and try again. And for Pete's sake, lose the militant and insulting antics that bring a lot of negative attention to your cause. There's an old saying that goes like this: You can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar.

Doesn't Maine have both U.S. senators who are Republicans? I might be wrong. But I think this is so. That tells you something about the people of Maine. The Senators are moderate, for sure. If one thinks the folks of Maine are ready for same sex marriage, um.....wouldn't it be more like both senators were Democrats? Just wondering.

Even California voters rejected same sex marriage. Wow. I was astonished at that outcome.

I think it's quite evident that people usually don't embrace a great change immediately. Change takes time in the hearts and minds of people. That is unless one would just want to ram the change down people's throats, so to speak.

What does not vehemently pro gay marriage mean? You support it when you feel like it? This is really an all or nothing issue.

Yes it is generally seen as a democrat/republican issue but it really comes down to a religious/secular issue. We don't need to drag partisanship into this.

Didn't the civil rights movement attempt to "ram change down America's throat?"

Does that mean it was the wrong way of doing things? I can't blame people for demanding rights now rather than biding their time.

Originally posted by The Transhumanist

Didn't the civil rights movement attempt to "ram change down America's throat?"

Does that mean it was the wrong way of doing things? I can't blame people for demanding rights now rather than biding their time.

uhm i think you missed the point on that one.

the right to marry, is not the same as right to freedom to be.

gays didn't have to sit at the back of the bus
gays didn't get crosses burned on their yards
their daughters raped
their sons murdered
their houses burned

for wanting to attend school and vote and live like a normal person.

aren't gays so dramatic..

just try again next time.

i just don't get it why gays want the right to "marry", so bad. the word is used for a religious purpose. in that religion you would go to the place down below for being gay to start with.

why not just call it civil partnership or something with the same benefits.

i don't try to weasel my way into other clubs or groups and call myself by one of their terms and then cry that its not fair that i cant be, because i don't follow any of their rules....

its kind of the same thing.

i guess an argument for you (because i like to play fair ) is that marriage itself is already tainted, because there are many atheists getting married already.

if you are going to use the religion argument for keeping gays out, then you should keep atheists out too. i just see a double standard that they use this as their argument when it suits their needs.

i really dont care one way or the other. its mostly a non-issue for me. i have gay friends, and i want them to be happy, but also dont see why marriage is the only way they will be happy.

wouldnt a rose by another name smell just as sweet?

gays didn't have to sit at the back of the bus gays didn't get crosses burned on their yards their daughters raped their sons murdered their houses burned

The KKK targeted homosexuals as well. Gays have been through almost as many hardships as any other minority group. They weren't legally segregated so that makes all the other hatred ok? Wasn't there a story just a month or two ago about a boy who committed suicide because he was harassed so much by his classmates for being gay? So Gays weren't slaves. Maybe they didn't have it AS hard as blacks. But that doesn't make any of the hatred even remotely acceptable and it certainly doesn't make your separate but equal argument stand up.