Gay marriage loses In Maine
-
-
- asherp
- added this
Suddenly "No on One" was only 300 votes ahead. Then a few more northern precincts came in, and we were 6,500 behind. Then 10,000 behind. Then 15,000 behind. Then 65,000 votes behind. It became clear that the 40,000 absentee votes left to be counted couldn't possibly carry the margin.
Justice, Equality, and Human Decency have lost this election.
==============================================
PORTLAND, Maine – Cecelia Burnett and Ann Swanson had already set their wedding date. When they joined about 1,000 other gay marriage supporters for an election night party in a Holiday Inn ballroom, they hoped to celebrate the vote that would make it possible.
Instead, they went home at midnight, dejected and near tears after a failed bid to make Maine the first state to approve same-sex marriage at the ballot box.
"I'm ready to start crying," said Burnett, a 58-year-old massage therapist, walking out of the ballroom with Swanson at her side. "I don't understand what the fear is, why people are so afraid of this change.
"It hurts. It hurts personally," she said. "It's a personal rejection of us and our relationship, and I don't understand what the fear is."
With 87 percent of precincts reporting, gay-marriage foes had 53 percent of the vote in a referendum that asked Maine voters whether they wanted to repeal a law allowing same-sex marriage that had passed the Legislature and was signed by Democratic Gov. John Baldacci.
"The institution of marriage has been preserved in Maine and across the nation," said Frank Schubert, the chief organizer for Stand for Marriage Maine, which lobbied for the repeal.
For the gay rights movement, which has gained a foothold in New England, it was a stinging defeat. Gay marriage has now lost in every 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, framing same-sex marriage as a matter of equality for all families in a campaign that used 8,000 volunteers to get out the message.
Five states have legalized gay marriage — Iowa, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire and Connecticut — but all did so through legislation or court rulings, not by popular vote.
Portland resident Sarah Holman said she was torn, but decided — despite her conservative upbringing — to vote in favor of letting gays marry.
"They love and they have the right to love. And we can't tell somebody how to love," said Holman, 26.
-
- groups:
- Community, News and Politics, US Politics, Progressive America, 8 more
-
-
nata0204
-
really all the things u canget away with in this country and people still arent allowed to fall in love an b with the person theu love?!?!how can soo many people b so stupid
- 2 years ago
-
nata0204
-
-
rickm8
-
Haha owned. Go cry it off.
- 2 years ago
-
rickm8
-
-
J_Jammer [removed]
-
I have a better clue than you do.
You're not paying attention to what it is I'm saying. You're focusing on what you wish me to say.
So in essence you're arguing with your own version of who you wish to argue with.
Nothing you said was a reply to anything I stated.
It is not a civil rights issue. it is not a human rights issue. It's an issue of pride.
Because if they actually used their brains all 50 states would allow civil unions. But they do not. They piggyback on past events which is why failure is an option.
- 2 years ago
-
J_Jammer [removed]
-
-
jubal
-
Entering into a contract with another human being to love, honor, and cherish, is a human rights issue. No matter how many times you say it isn't doesn't make it true.
I don't support marriage in any form. Marriage is a religious institution. Civil unions are civil contracts and religion has no place in it.
Laughing to yourself? Maybe you should have that checked out before it becomes a problem.
All people have a constitutional right to their pursuit of happiness. Forming a life long partnership is not infringing on the rights of others.
Perhaps you need to be schooled on what human rights are because, based on your comments, you haven't got a clue.
- 2 years ago
-
jubal
-
-
J_Jammer [removed]
-
Good thing you did that whole "you just rendered your whole contribution irrelevant" by making a comparison to civil rights first. You beat me to it.
It is not a human rights issue. Marriage is a word. It's a pride issue.
stop making me laugh.
- 2 years ago
-
J_Jammer [removed]
-
-
jubal
-
What a completely ignorant response "gay people made up a reason". It is a human rights issue, unless you are one of those people who think that being gay is a choice?
You just rendered your whole contribution irrelevant by making such ignorant statements as the one I quoted above.
- 2 years ago
-
jubal
-
-
J_Jammer [removed]
-
I was thinking it was a "saying" and in that post I was going to put that that is a stupid saying. It is a stupid saying. Looks like I put it in this reply.
Karma is a joke and fake. But that's beside the point...isn't it? Yes.
Do you think I care that you are asking me if you care? *shakes head* no I do not. Consideration for other people's views isn't something that this site is very good with. Not the site itself but those that post here. It's fun watching people try to go against what they really are like to be accommodating....but they can't hold that fakeness for long and then they break down and start being belittling and attacking people for their views.
They are not both human right issues. Black people had a reason for being upset. Gay people made up a reason and then tried to use struggles of the past to make theirs more valid. It doesn't work that way. They are piggybacking on other people's pain in hopes to garner sympathy instead of actually trying to fix the problem they are making it worse just by the way they are acting in the political arena and in the person in person relationship.
And the BIG difference between black and gay struggles is that black people cannot hide that they are black.
Oh metaphorical violence. Is that anything like when teenagers write in their journals how they want to kill people or making a hit list? They didn't do anything, they are just being metaphorical...venting their frustration with people that don't think just like them...rid them off the planet then all things will be better. Or in Current-ese "rid the world of religion and conservatives/republicans and the world would be a better place". Adorable.
Justifying violence is gross.
- 2 years ago
-
J_Jammer [removed]
-
-
jubal
-
Do you think that I care if you care? Karma is a way of saying that "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." It isn't rocket science or mystery voodoo. Karma is a real thing.
Also I am not making a comparison about the black struggle with the gay struggle, although they are both struggles in human rights. My point was completely lost on you based on your reply. You reacted to the fact that I mentioned black and gay in the same post and then set about trashing my opinion. Good Job Jammer at demonstrating your illustrious oppositional skills and targeting me with your self serving commentary.
What you perceived as a threat of violence is a metaphorical or hyperbolic way of demonstrating the "action/reaction" principle. Everyone knows that when you bottle up pressure that keeps building, eventually that pressure is going to explode violently.
The pressure for equality is a tremendous force that will eventually blow up in the faces of those who oppose it. That is Karma.
- 2 years ago
-
jubal
-
-
J_Jammer [removed]
-
No such thing as karma. None.
Or some people would have got theirs a long time ago....before they kill millions upon millions of people and those good people they got didn't get good karma to begin with.
Comparing gay problems with black past problems is a joke and always will be. They do not have it that bad. When you point to somewhere in homosexual history where they couldn't drink out of the same fountain or had to go to a different school or were slaves in the sugarcane fields in Jamaica...then you can compare the two. You cannot compare them unless you're looking for sympathy by emotionally blackmailing people like an abusive person does to their victims.
That is when I stop caring what people have to say...when they use an unrelated historical moment to back something they half heartedly believe in. Because if people REALLY believed in what they wanted with civil unions or whatever they want to call it....they'd actually be thinking outside the box. They'd look clearly at what they are up against instead of doing the same stupid thing over and over again and getting the door slammed in their face.
So threaten people with violence. They'll never get their way by the path they are taking. It's like watching failblog.org reality TV.
- 2 years ago
-
J_Jammer [removed]
-
-
jubal
-
To everyone who has posted on this thread, you all need to wake up to one important fact. Marriage became regulated by the government of the United States as a way to prevent blacks from marrying whites. Laws were created in certain states to require marriages to be registered or licensed by the state. Huge amounts of cases were litigated and the resulting decisions moved the Federal Government to get in on the regulation. Before the issue of regulating interracial marriage emerged, people went to their religions to get married. You didn't go to the Justice of the Peace to get married.
That is why I fully support throwing religion out of the regulation of marriage, which in its most truest form, a civil contract between consenting individuals. All unions, from the standpoint of the state, should be CIVIL UNIONS. Give marriage back to religions. If people want marriage go to your FUCKING CHURCH and get one.
LIVE and LET LIVE or if you keep trying to tell us how to live WE ARE GOING TO FUCK YOU UP!!!
Those of you who want to deny MARRIAGE EQUALITY to others because of their "lifestyles" are creating a huge backlash of KARMA. It will literally blow up in your faces if you continue on your headstrong trajectory.
- 2 years ago
-
jubal
-
-
J_Jammer [removed]
-
They sealed their loss by doing the same stupid things over and over again. They lose because they can't think creatively. They'll continue to lose until they do more than what they read in history or what they compare themselves wrongly to.
- 2 years ago
-
J_Jammer [removed]
-
-
J_Jammer [removed]
-
J_Jammer:
There are people that have opinions about illegal immigration and they are not in the border states. Location doesn't afford the right to share an opinion. Nice try.
And I'm very right. They failed because they are stupid. They have history that backs them and they can't even use it right to win. Only idiot would fail and that's what happened in Maine.
They could have won big time, but they preformed stupidly and they will continue to do so.....and failure will be theirs to tote around.
- 2 years ago
-
J_Jammer [removed]
-
-
My_America
-
A week later and it still makes me smile.
- 2 years ago
-
My_America
-
-
UrbanGypsy
-
My_America:
We'll see who gets the last laugh. The demographics show that gay marriage will be an inevitability in the future.
- 2 years ago
-
UrbanGypsy
-
-
eden49
-
...The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision...
- 2 years ago
-
eden49
-
-
jubal
-
@ibrakeforrapper, you toally missed the point of that quote from George Washington. He didn't mean what he said because he believed that the Bible was the infalible word of god, he said that because he already knew that the Bible is the best tool to use to govern with, because of the fear that it instill in the hearts of ignorant men. If it were not for the bible, we would have had no need for a declaration of independence.
George Washington: "The United States is in no sense founded on Christian Doctrine."
- 2 years ago
-
jubal
-
-
SleepDirt
-
I see rapper has been mounting a holy jihad while I've been gone. I came back to find all kinds of bible quotes fouling the place.
- 2 years ago
-
SleepDirt
-
-
amandapandalol
-
Dammit, I thought we were supposed to be making progress? Marriage shouldn't be a heterosexual privilege. Such bull crap.
- 2 years ago
-
amandapandalol
-
-
SleepDirt
-
If gays are allowed to marry God will be pissed and there will be a great big flood and a talking snake. I'm scared of snakes, especially talking ones.
- 2 years ago
-
SleepDirt
-
-
jubal
-
God told me all the religious bigots are going to burn in their own hell. God wants you to know that there aren't any boy angels or girl angels in heaven, every being is the same. There isn't going to be marriage. You will no longer be male or female. You will be gender neutral, like the angels. Oh and there will be sex, lots and lots of sex, forever and ever Amen.
- 2 years ago
-
jubal
-
-
SleepDirt
-
jubal:
That's a coincidence because God talks to me all the time too (he only calls once a week or so these days). He just told me earlier today that Jesus was gay. It's why he always hung around with those twelve 'apostles'.
- 2 years ago
-
SleepDirt
-
-
cindydupree
-
jubal:
you have really got to be an idiot on some things to think that sex will be in heaven..and you truli need to read and understand your bible if you have one God dont justify gays..they are to have their place in the lake of fire.,if they do not change and repent
- 2 years ago
-
cindydupree
-
-
SleepDirt
-
jubal:
OK, that's settled. BTW, where is this 'lake of fire', exactly?
Let me guess....H-E-Double Hockey sticks - 2 years ago
-
SleepDirt
-
-
jubal
-
jubal:
@ Cindydupree, God has nothing to do with the bible, or any so called "words of god" except to lament that he ever allowed religions to become the fanatical forces of destruction that they have become. They are complicit with the money changers and have fornicated with Mammon.
- 2 years ago
-
jubal
-
-
cindydupree
-
President Barack Obama on Oct. 28 signed a defense bill that includes a useless, senseless, unnecessary law – one that greatly expands the authority of the federal government to punish people who commit violent crimes against homosexual men, lesbians, transsexuals and transgendered persons.
The new law will certainly make activists representing these people feel better. But it won’t make them any safer, and isn’t that the point of our justice system?
- 2 years ago
-
cindydupree
-
-
Eve_Aruguete
-
cindydupree:
GOD IS GOOD for she helped to pass the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act that includes sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability as one type of hate that can be seen under the law. (Note this law is also gives greater latitude to hate crimes motivated by race, color, religion, or national origin). This is first time in history the federal government has recognized hate against lgbt people and made it punishable. It is also the first time crimes against trans peoples will be recorded as a statistic by the feds.
- 2 years ago
-
Eve_Aruguete
-
-
jubal
-
We should legalize and recognize all kinship family ties. Family isn't just one man and one woman. Blood doesn't make a family; love does.
- 2 years ago
-
jubal
-
-
freecrack
-
i forget where exactly is that passage in the bible that says wich people are allowed which rights. was it the part where we are all gods children no thats not it.
love your enemy ooops no love the sinners nope.
its thier favorite part where jesus is persecuted to the point of death.
congrats you have read the bible so intensely without critical thought you have become the romans in the scenario it seems to relive the passion of christ and with the lack of a messiah to lavish your hate upon the gays have fit that role.
i hope when you gus die you see zues cuz jesus is just going to ask you in disbelief "really?" - 2 years ago
-
freecrack
-
-
craigsaid
-
Two things 'separate but equal' is outright bigotry = UNAMERICAN HATER BS!
Secondly the 'values' argument is a thin veneer for the first option, a religious argument, or both. Given the 1st Amendment I feel any law prohibiting Gay Marriage, from municipal up to national, is expressly unconstitutional.
To bad administration we hate America and we want it to slowly choke to death stacked a bunch of nobs on the Supreme Court.
- 2 years ago
-
craigsaid
-
-
randallr01
-
MOB RULE
- 2 years ago
-
randallr01
-
-
clarissainjapan
-
If it is not religious then why is it done in a church and "before God and friends." Marriage is very religious. And religious people cant tell you what not to do, but in the same respect you cant make them accept what you are doing either. TWO WAY STREET.
American are very pushy/bullies. We even try to tell each other what our religions should and should not be. We all could benefit from learning some boundaries.
- 2 years ago
-
clarissainjapan
-
-
tangibleparadox
-
clarissainjapan:
i'm not religious. i don't believe in a god. i'm an atheist, in fact. my fiance and i will be married next year, not in a church, not before any god, but before our friends and family. it will be a secular ceremony to show them how much we love each other and that we will be spending the rest of our lives together. god and religion have nothing to do with it. i'd be doing this with or without legal benefits. but since they exist for hetero couples, they should exist for all couples. not all religions and faiths define marriage as "one man and one woman." for me, it's personal how you define marriage, especially since i don't have a church or holy book to follow (and that suits me just fine).
"Each Person = One legal bond per life." sounds good to me. leave the term "marriage" up to the couple and out of the law; that would keep from any sentiments of the government and law infringing on anyone's religious beliefs. partners can recognized each other as married or joined or partnered or however they want to phrase it in accordance with their beliefs, and the government can recognize them as legally bonded. good deal.
- 2 years ago
-
tangibleparadox
-
-
RFIDemocracy
-
clarissainjapan:
It's not. Marriage can take place in an elevator, on a ship, in space, on a trapeze, unersea. No religious officials or religious vows or religious language is required in any corner of the country to be legally married by a licensed civic official.
WTF are you talking about? - 2 years ago
-
RFIDemocracy
-
-
esserius
-
Civil marriage has been defined by the state since the inception of the constitution and has nothing to do with religion (or even the question of whether "marriage" means one man and one woman). Yet it's seen as problematic to religion. The question really is: why? It's not religious marriage.
- 2 years ago
-
esserius
-
-
clarissainjapan
-
EASY ANSWER: Separate the issues from the religion.
I believe gays should have the same "legal rights" as married people... sure why not. I would vote yes to that! Just call it something else, so that my religion is not impacted by it! The law should just allow every person to "legally bind themselves to ONE other person, and get the benefits that 'married' people do". If fact "marriage" should be 100% a religious thing and not a legal issue at all! Separate church and state.Each Person = One legal bond per life. DONE!
I must say, I think it is wrong for gays to ask Christians (even the bad ones who don't follow their own rules) to change the definition of an idea/word in their religion. By asking people to "vote" to allow the word "marriage" to now include gays is asking them to change their religion. And that is not ok! Call it something else.
Don't put Christians in a situation were they have to judge/vote if YOU BEING GAY IS OK. Cause their religion say IT IS NOT! And they not gonna have God asking them why they didn't uphold his rules so you can do what you wanna do.
....dont just react to this posting....let it sink in for a minute.
- 2 years ago
-
clarissainjapan
-
-
mojojuju
-
clarissainjapan:
Get ready to be called a bigoted and insensitive bible-thumper. Also, be on the lookout for comments referring to you as uneducated, ignorant, a teabagger, a redneck, or an "old white male".
- 2 years ago
-
mojojuju
-
-
RFIDemocracy
-
clarissainjapan:
Don't the teachings of Jesus include all of God's children or something?
Or are gays just Satan's spawn? Please enlighten me, oh learned one. Surely the holy book must contain the answers to everything worldly. - 2 years ago
-
RFIDemocracy
-
-
Minus5scenePoints
-
Gez, One the way to one step forward and then something like this and two to 8 steps backwards.
I fulling think that with-in the next few year's it'll become legal. Look at the past 60 some odd years and every in-difference in typical white america has come out and become known and formed rights. Pretty much every race that was looked down on has rights when in the 40's there were "colored bathrooms". We're on our way towards equality. Someday soon. - 2 years ago
-
Minus5scenePoints
-
-
FlexSF
-
We must sue the state of Maine in federal court. The legislative process has failed, and this is pure discrimination. An entire group of people's marriage rights were voted away at the behest of religious slobs. We must make them pay for their disgusting actions!
We must sue in court, or put disgusting religious bigot corporation up for a vote! I hate religious zealots!
- 2 years ago
-
FlexSF
-
-
samthesixth
-
FlexSF:
No no no! As a proponent of gay marriage we must leave the decision in the hands of the people and not the court. Just like in Cali, regroup, reeducate, redo. But don't go against the will of the people to find a sympathetic judge.
- 2 years ago
-
samthesixth
-
-
SleepDirt
-
-
FlexSF:
Then you'd support this, I guess
Washington state voters have approved Referendum 71, keeping a law that expands state benefits for registered same-sex and some senior domestic partners.
- 2 years ago
-
SleepDirt
-
-
mojojuju
-
The more I read about the fight for gay marriage, it seems it is not as much about equal rights as it is about promoting public acceptance of gays.
And I'm not interested at all in using legislation as a way of promoting acceptance.
If it is equal rights they want, then they should go for equal rights, but the fight for gay marriage does not seem as much about those rights as it is about being included in the definition of the word "marriage".
I feel the battle for gay people would be much more easily won if they would just go after what rights they want, and not trying to go after the word "marriage".
(Note:Current.com members, please feel free to add your obligatory "backwards redneck, bible thumping Christian, republican who probably voted for G.W.Bush, and bigot" comments. I am none of those things.)
- 2 years ago
-
mojojuju
-
-
unclecharlie
-
mojojuju:
You said it- it is trying to use legislation to make people embrace homosexual behavior. Since the people won't vote for it, they try to use the courts to impose it on the American public.
- 2 years ago
-
unclecharlie
-
-
Humdrum
-
mojojuju:
"The people" wouldn't even have to hear about it if it weren't for nancies like you. If you think this is "shoving it down peoples' throats," take a look at your own behavior.
The gay agenda = leave us the fuck alone.
What part of "live and let live" rubs you the wrong way? - 2 years ago
-
Humdrum
-
-
Eve_Aruguete
-
mojojuju:
i agree we should fight for our rights vs being included in the definition of marriage. Marriage is an area where the state has capitulated to religion. If this nation stuck to the constitution marriage would have nothing to do with the state because religion is separate from the state. Marriages should be just one of many kinds of civil unions given "rights and responsibilities". Any two adults who agree to enter into a civil union (also includes non-sexual and non-procreative relationships) should be able to do so by registering with the state.
I do believe that gay marriage as the gay civil rights cause-du-jour comes out of the drive for assimilation and conformity into mainstream, straight culture. Personally I'm not an assimilist, I'm a liberationist. I've always wondered, why should gay people assimilate into straight culture, when straight people have so much more to learn from us gays than we do from them? WE are the new world. WE are the ones redefining gender roles, creating new living arrangements, leading alternative families with chosen, responsible parenting, we are the ones who are vibrant into our old age, we are the ones creating new culture....
- 2 years ago
-
Eve_Aruguete
-
-
unclecharlie
-
Cry me a river...........It's a real shame when the WILL OF THE PEOPLE is validated, and rule by government legislation and lawsuits fail. That is why we vote. So the people can make their voice heard. Of course, using the courts to force the issue is how the agenda is pushed, because the common people will wisely reject it, by their vote.
- 2 years ago
-
unclecharlie
-
-
EdMcFunkin
-
Farmington, ME: the results were astonishing. Religious extremists were putting ads everywhere all over Maine to outnumber the total of all the political signs of the presidential election. Furthermore, anywhere on the internet that had an ad paid for by Google, was Yes on 1. There were a significant number of outside supporters of churches fronting a lot of money toward this. Unfortunately most of Maine is poor and couldn't think of that level of advertisement. If we keep bringing it up every year, maybe supporters will eventually run out of money to throw away?
- 2 years ago
-
EdMcFunkin
-
-
MikiCarter
-
I STILL don't understand why it is legal to deny any human being of equal rights...
- 2 years ago
-
MikiCarter
-
-
humanpasta
-
As a lifelong Mainer, this REALLY pissed me off. I only know 3 people that are opposed to gay marriage; my rediculously religious mother and grandparents. I am shocked that this passed. Ignorance intolorance and religious indoctrination are destroying this country.
- 2 years ago
-
humanpasta
-
-
MotherForTruth
-
lionessgrrl,
WOW,
"the greatest threat to heterosexual marriage, is heterosexual marriage. these elderly redneck hillbillies have got to die off sometime, right?"
Is this a comment from someone who seeks equality?
No wonder innocent heterosexual men are prosecuted in Maine is this also a way to break up "heterosexual marriage" and live the children suffer while their innocent fathers are in prison?
It appears Maine is very "progressive" and the Witch Hunt that is taking place there is flourishing. - 2 years ago
-
MotherForTruth
-
-
RFIDemocracy
-
To be clear, I support the civil rights under the US Constitution for all minorities including the LGTB community. I am not gay nor do I presently claim to personally know one single person who is openly gay at this time.
All people are equal in the eyes of the laws of the land and the US Constitution.
A clear majority agrees with me.Fuck the bible, it means nothing to me and has nothing whatsoever to do with either law or morality. The bible is a fraudulent document created to enslave human beings and 'morally' justify the same.
- 2 years ago
-
RFIDemocracy
-
-
lionessgrrl
-
the greatest threat to heterosexual marriage, is heterosexual marriage. these elderly redneck hillbillies have got to die off sometime, right?
- 2 years ago
-
lionessgrrl
-
-
mojojuju
-
lionessgrrl:
Way to stereotype, it really shows off your character!
- 2 years ago
-
mojojuju
-
-
lionessgrrl
-
lionessgrrl:
you're totally right. biggots come in all forms. thanks for clarifying.
- 2 years ago
-
lionessgrrl
-
-
samthesixth
-
So the Yankees turn out not to be the enlightened progressives that we mistook New Englanders for?
- 2 years ago
-
samthesixth
-
-
RFIDemocracy
-
samthesixth:
"So the Yankees turn out not to be the enlightened progressives that we mistook New Englanders for?"
Section 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.***
I guess gays were not invented when the US Constitution was drafted, right?
I'm sure you support those portions of the document that suit you personally while rejecting or ignoring the inconvenient bits.
- 2 years ago
-
RFIDemocracy
-
-
samthesixth
-
samthesixth:
I don't know what your point is. I am a supporter of gay marriage. Of the five states that have gay marriage, four are in New England. New England views itself as enlightened and progressive. I was blown away that Mainers did not support gay marriage given their independent and enlightened views.
- 2 years ago
-
samthesixth
-
-
Kylsport
-
Kudos to Maine from a gay man.
- 2 years ago
-
Kylsport
-
-
lj111
-
its about time!!!!!!
- 2 years ago
-
lj111
-
-
Humdrum
-
"Separation of church and state"
It's both depressing and awe-inspiring that this idea, being centuries old, is still utterly lost on an ignorant ocean of people in the year 2009.
After all, its only one of the founding virtues of our country.
Strange how easily they forget it...but not surprising, as they do the same damned thing with the tenants of Christianity.And before anyone gets all huffy, here is the definition of ignorance:
"The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed."
It's not an insult, merely a verifiable fact.
An opportunity, even. You know - to learn something new. - 2 years ago
-
Humdrum
-
-
esserius
-
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution
Section 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.Funny, here it says all persons.
I guess we're allowed to skip that part. It worked so well for segregationists! - 2 years ago
-
esserius
-
-
transfire
-
Sad. Why would gay people even want to live among such miserable closed-minded peers. How about a drive for gay and gay friendly people to move to one state, then we'd have enough votes to equalize the law.
- 2 years ago
-
transfire
-
-
tentreefingers
-
this is not right...
just about every one who has commented this far shares the same heartbreak I'm experiencing. it shouldn't even be experienced but there is something comforting about the underlying connection we all share. it seems we are all accepting and enlightened in a sense.
with time our light will shine through.
right? - 2 years ago
-
tentreefingers
-
-
RFIDemocracy
-
Thursday, April 30, 2009-For the first time in a nationwide survey, more Americans say they support gay marriage (49%) than oppose it (46%), according to the latest Washington Post/ABC poll.
It will happen but the road is long and difficult.
- 2 years ago
-
RFIDemocracy
-
-
d100Productions
-
Hm... Should we just abandon the right to vote and call in 12 of the worlds most enlightened people to decide what's right or wrong? When America is ready, it will pass. There's too much desire for instant gratification nowadays. Have patience, don't be demoralized, and keep fighting. But DONT force your beliefs on others, that go's for the both of you.
- 2 years ago
-
d100Productions
-
-
puka
-
d100Productions:
.............yes its is wrong but its up 2 evey one to vote
- 2 years ago
-
puka
-
-
mojojuju
-
d100Productions:
Sorry that this is off-topic, but I just want to comment that I like your user name, Big_Angry_Nerd!
- 2 years ago
-
mojojuju
-
-
MotherForTruth
-
I do not see anyone crying over the Witch Hunt which destroyed the lives of innocent people and their families in Maine!
Shenna Bellows, executive director of the Maine Civil Liberties Union, said she was disappointed by Tuesday’s results.
“My heart aches because gay and lesbian couples living together in Maine are still denied the over 400 rights that are allowed under civil marriage,” she said.Why Maine Civil Liberties Union is not addressing these issues,
1) Domestic violence organization turned an abused man away and chose to give assistance to his abusive wife instead.
2) In Hancock County Maine where radical feminist philosophy that that all sex between men and women is rape and that women just don’t realize that they are being raped even by their partners is being put to practice by the District Attorney’s office.
3) Men in the community have been criminally charged for such alleged crimes as splashing water on their wives, spitting, for “terrorism” due to offensive song lyrics, visual aggression, and for what often can be viewed as any action against a female.
3) A class “A” gross sexual assault charge, which is a frequent charge against men in Hancock County, and one of the easiest and most profitable for a prosecutor to undertake.
4) One Bangor television station aired an interview with a local rape crisis center official who stated that even if a woman falsely accuses a man of rape, it is most important for law enforcement to believe the woman, act on her report, and do exactly what she wants them to do.
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2009/10/23/false-rape-witch-hunts-gone-wild/ - 2 years ago
-
MotherForTruth
-
-
PureEm
-
Holy crap America. Canada voted it in back in like 2002. We didn't have huge riots or social upheaval. Just give them the right to marry and we wouldn't even have to have this discussion anymore. IF YOU THINK GAY MARRIAGE IS WRONG, DON'T HAVE ONE. IF YOU THINK INTERACIAL MARRIAGE IS WRONG, DON'T HAVE ONE. It's not rocket science: don't force your belief on others.
- 2 years ago
-
PureEm
-
-
puka
-
PureEm:
that s trure.............................
- 2 years ago
-
puka
-
-
d100Productions
-
PureEm:
Didn't Canada also not give the right to Chinese to vote til like the 50's too?
- 2 years ago
-
d100Productions
-
-
RFIDemocracy
-
PureEm:
Didn't California deny blacks the right to own land until the 1950s?
- 2 years ago
-
RFIDemocracy
-
-
d100Productions
-
PureEm:
How the fuck should I know?
- 2 years ago
-
d100Productions
-
-
PureEm
-
PureEm:
You see, unlike America, Canada did not enslave black people. Western Canadian provinces were open and welcoming to these PEOPLE, a term america didn't see fit to describe the African American population until these past couple decades
- 2 years ago
-
PureEm
-
-
d100Productions
-
PureEm:
But America didn't deny voting rights to the Chinese in the 50's (not sure if true on both points). But you see what I'm getting at Pure?
- 2 years ago
-
d100Productions
-
-
PureEm
-
PureEm:
I do. Apparently, your neighbour is much more adept at recognizing human rights violations than the "land of the free"
- 2 years ago
-
PureEm
-
-
SleepDirt
-
PureEm:
BigAngryNerd
"How the fuck should I know?"
Oh so you're *not* an historian, you just play one on Current. LOL - 2 years ago
-
SleepDirt
-
-
puka
-
all pepole should be able to choose who they love weter its the same sex are not we should not judge who they love and want to be with
- 2 years ago
-
puka
-
-
Eve_Aruguete
-
puka:
that's the not the issue, I don't let the state tell me who I can love, i just want them to back me up when i ask that my loved one inherit my wealth or have visitation rights when i'm sick. sorry but i need to clarify that because i think alot of people get it confused as if they are voting to give their moral stamp of approval to homosexuality.
- 2 years ago
-
Eve_Aruguete
-
-
PepsiJuror
-
You know, I've been reading the back and forth crap all night. Respect each others views and shut up - on both sides!!! We as American's have rights. Whether this judgement is right or wrong, everyone has the right to think or believe or feel how they want to. Stop pushing your stupid ideal off on others. I'm personally hetro, but I personally think it would suck if someone dictated to me who I could and couldn't marry. - I think you would agree. Shut up and go sleep it off!
- 2 years ago
-
PepsiJuror
-
-
eskimoe
-
Not surprising. The only explanation I can think of is that people think it's gross and they don't want to see it. They don't want to have to talk to their children about it. Selfish it seems.
- 2 years ago
-
eskimoe
-
-
EtVoila
-
More proof that, so far, America is NOT the land of the free.
- 2 years ago
-
EtVoila
-
-
Maeveeo
-
It is what it is !
- 2 years ago
-
Maeveeo
-
-
Jesse400
-
Yes. Voting on civil rights seems like a good idea to me. Now lets vote on whether or not to breathe...
- 2 years ago
-
Jesse400
-
-
JonRaymond
-
Jesse400:
Perhaps a new corporate air industry that mandates everyone buy clean air insurance or else they be forced to live in Paulsboro NJ.
- 2 years ago
-
JonRaymond
-
-
ScorpioGee
-
Jesse400:
Hey, hey hey!
They're will be no mudslinging about my beloved dirty state. Pick on California instead! ;)
- 2 years ago
-
ScorpioGee
-
-
jmid
-
shameful
- 2 years ago
-
jmid
-
-
JonRaymond
-
Perhaps there should be a new strategy (or an additional one) to go after things that are prejudiced toward people who are married, such as tax exemptions, etc. If people who are gay can't legally get married then they should have a good case against policies and laws that favor people who are married.
- 2 years ago
-
JonRaymond
-
-
CreditFigaro
-
JonRaymond:
You keep bringing this up, so i am going to respond to you:
To live in lifestyle where two people share a certain closeness, marriage for example, there is social value in supporting such a union with tax incentives (one partner is raising children, while the other works), visitation rights and all the other fun stuff that goes along with being married.
Abolishing marriage as a concept in the tax and legal code would, most definitely, do more harm than good.
- 2 years ago
-
CreditFigaro
-
-
JonRaymond
-
JonRaymond:
But it is unfair unless all unions regardless of race, creed, and gender are honored. So either honor all or honor none. It is this double standard that tears down the fabric of our society.
Same applies in the economy. If corporate welfare is OK to bailout companies then the same should be ok to bailout people. I can't pay back my loans. I'm too deep in the red. Give me a bailout. Either that or don't dole them out to Wall Street, because can be improved just as well (or better) by bailing out main street.
- 2 years ago
-
JonRaymond
-
-
ScorpioGee
-
I'm sorry only a few people in Maine destroyed the rights of many in that state. But don't worry guys. Just pick yourself up, brush yourself off and get back in the fight. Because you've just lost a battle but the war isn't over.
Personally I think Marriage as a union thru the American government is an intrusion of the separation of church and state. It should be downgraded into Civil Unions--so everyone could be married and religion is not force upon the government.
- 2 years ago
-
ScorpioGee
-
-
drewsuf721
-
ScorpioGee:
The "downgrading" of marriage to a civil union would be the intrusion of state into church affairs. To recognize both union and marriage equally would be the right thing to do.
It wasn't just "a few" voters who decided this. More than half of the registered voters came to the ballots for nine citizen initiatives and about 1/3 of all registered voters chose yes on 1, sadly. - 2 years ago
-
drewsuf721
-
-
JonRaymond
-
ScorpioGee:
Or not recognize sexual unions at all. Keep the government out of my bedroom.
- 2 years ago
-
JonRaymond
-
-
drewsuf721
-
ScorpioGee:
Recognizing unions helps with tax issues, hospital access, and end of life decisions... so it would be much worse if there was no legality involved.
- 2 years ago
-
drewsuf721
-
-
Varex_Sythe
-
ScorpioGee:
I'd agree that "downgrading" marriage to the level of a civil union would be government interfering with religion, except it was government interference that placed marriage on such a high legal pedestal anyways. If the government won't make homosexual marriage legal, then the best thing it can do is completely remove any legal status from the title of marriage and make it a completely religious ceremony. That way if people want to have specific legal benefits, such as medical decisions and tax benefits, they have to legally sign up for a civil union no matter what their sexual preference is.
- 2 years ago
-
Varex_Sythe
-
-
CreditFigaro
-
ScorpioGee:
What about religions who have conflicting opinions. There are religions that recognize same sex marriage. Isn't keeping it illegal intruding into THOSE religions' affairs?
- 2 years ago
-
CreditFigaro
-
-
Ihatethemall
-
ScorpioGee:
"A few people" ???? It wasnt a few. It was a majority
- 2 years ago
-
Ihatethemall
-
-
rowyourboat17
-
Please dont blame Chrisitanity for this, Im a Christian myself and i completely support gay rights. The Bible taught us to love and accept everyone, and thats the way I live my life. I think some people use religion as a way to disguise fear and prejudice.
- 2 years ago
-
rowyourboat17
-
-
ochreRobot
-
rowyourboat17:
Unfortunately, a large portion of the christian leadership, or at least those with access to the media do not share your interpretation of the bible. Props to you though, christianity would be viewed in a much more positive light if more christians believed what you do.
- 2 years ago
-
ochreRobot
-
-
grinde77
-
rowyourboat17:
i agree. i am a christian as well and hopefully christians like us will be heard. because in reality, only the extremist christians are heard in the media (im not starting an arguement there since the media can say whatever they want about christianity) and thats only a small percentage of us. but someday will gay rights and christianity may coexist? maybe. we'll see.
- 2 years ago
-
grinde77
