Maine's Question 1

[Lunar]

then maybe this thread should stop attempting to crucify those that oppose gay marriage and it wouldn't turn into such

where do you find the courage?

[Jari Askins for Gov 2010]

1 No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry
   whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods,
   nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief.

oh, I am not going to stop you from doing what you what.  go ahead and marry ten men...just don't ask me to recognize it

No one cares if YOU recognize it or not.  Or even LIKE it.

What's important is that the LAW recognizes it.  You know, the simple dignity of being able to pass on property without it being unfairly taxed by the government.  Or being able to visit someone in the hospital.

I don't understand why people are so fervently opposed to THAT, that they don't even care about pretending it's about the institution of marriage and instead fight against any sort of recognition, any sort of "favor."

That's precisely why I support civil unions by-and-large, because every person has a right to be cared for and loved and a right to care and love no matter their sexual orientation.  Just because I may not agree with their choice doesn't mean they're any less entitled to the same rights as I do.

As for same-sex marriage, what I said in a post earlier in this thread needs clarification.  I don't support it per se, but I feel I don't have a right to discriminate against it with the "Bible" excuse, because we, as Christians, haven't exactly lived up to what the Bible also says about marriage, and I'm talking about DIVORCE.  Its a matter of trying to take the plank out of your eye when i have a log in mine.  So, I don't like gay marriage, and I probably never will, but one thing I have always believed when I point a finger at my good friend, I have three fingers pointing right back at me.  If I were only to open those three fingers and extend the hand of good fellowship and aide to my brothers and sisters.  I guess what I'm trying to get at is I believe gay marriage is wrong, but divorce is equally as wrong, so until we, as Christians, get that plank called divorce out of our eye, we can't see clearly to erradicate gay marriage from the global discussion.

[Senator Scott Westman (L-MT)]

1 No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry
   whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods,
   nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief.

oh, I am not going to stop you from doing what you what.  go ahead and marry ten men...just don't ask me to recognize it

No one cares if YOU recognize it or not.  Or even LIKE it.

What's important is that the LAW recognizes it.  You know, the simple dignity of being able to pass on property without it being unfairly taxed by the government.  Or being able to visit someone in the hospital.

I don't understand why people are so fervently opposed to THAT, that they don't even care about pretending it's about the institution of marriage and instead fight against any sort of recognition, any sort of "favor."

That's precisely why I support civil unions by-and-large, because every person has a right to be cared for and loved and a right to care and love no matter their sexual orientation.  Just because I may not agree with their choice doesn't mean they're any less entitled to the same rights as I do.

As for same-sex marriage, what I said in a post earlier in this thread needs clarification.  I don't support it per se, but I feel I don't have a right to discriminate against it with the "Bible" excuse, because we, as Christians, haven't exactly lived up to what the Bible also says about marriage, and I'm talking about DIVORCE.  Its a matter of trying to take the plank out of your eye when i have a log in mine.  So, I don't like gay marriage, and I probably never will, but one thing I have always believed when I point a finger at my good friend, I have three fingers pointing right back at me.  If I were only to open those three fingers and extend the hand of good fellowship and aide to my brothers and sisters.  I guess what I'm trying to get at is I believe gay marriage is wrong, but divorce is equally as wrong, so until we, as Christians, get that plank called divorce out of our eye, we can't see clearly to erradicate gay marriage from the global discussion.

Some of you may rag on Okie for some of his views on this matter, but trust me folks his views on this issue are WAAAAY better than most other Oklahoma social conservatives. Trust me.

[Senator Franzl]

1 No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry
   whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods,
   nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief.

oh, I am not going to stop you from doing what you what.  go ahead and marry ten men...just don't ask me to recognize it

No one cares if YOU recognize it or not.  Or even LIKE it.

What's important is that the LAW recognizes it.  You know, the simple dignity of being able to pass on property without it being unfairly taxed by the government.  Or being able to visit someone in the hospital.

I don't understand why people are so fervently opposed to THAT, that they don't even care about pretending it's about the institution of marriage and instead fight against any sort of recognition, any sort of "favor."

That's precisely why I support civil unions by-and-large, because every person has a right to be cared for and loved and a right to care and love no matter their sexual orientation.  Just because I may not agree with their choice doesn't mean they're any less entitled to the same rights as I do.

As for same-sex marriage, what I said in a post earlier in this thread needs clarification.  I don't support it per se, but I feel I don't have a right to discriminate against it with the "Bible" excuse, because we, as Christians, haven't exactly lived up to what the Bible also says about marriage, and I'm talking about DIVORCE.  Its a matter of trying to take the plank out of your eye when i have a log in mine.  So, I don't like gay marriage, and I probably never will, but one thing I have always believed when I point a finger at my good friend, I have three fingers pointing right back at me.  If I were only to open those three fingers and extend the hand of good fellowship and aide to my brothers and sisters.  I guess what I'm trying to get at is I believe gay marriage is wrong, but divorce is equally as wrong, so until we, as Christians, get that plank called divorce out of our eye, we can't see clearly to erradicate gay marriage from the global discussion.

That's a very thoughtful post.

One question I still have though: If you can accept the arguments in favor of civil unions, and you clearly explained your reasoning for that, how can you not support marriage?

Basically, do you believe in the seperation of church and state? If yes, I challenge you to find one argument against full state recognition of marriage. The state cannot recognize religious arguments, and if it does, it is clearly discriminating against people who hold different religious beliefs or none at all.

Any church should be able to marry whoever they want, based on whatever crazy rules they want. That's their business, and they're free to do it.

But the state has no business in playing that game, the state is there to provide worldy representation in a fair and objective manner. Discrminating against two consenting adults that happen to be of the same sex simply isn't acceptable.

[Jari Askins for Gov 2010]

1 No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry
   whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods,
   nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief.

oh, I am not going to stop you from doing what you what.  go ahead and marry ten men...just don't ask me to recognize it

No one cares if YOU recognize it or not.  Or even LIKE it.

What's important is that the LAW recognizes it.  You know, the simple dignity of being able to pass on property without it being unfairly taxed by the government.  Or being able to visit someone in the hospital.

I don't understand why people are so fervently opposed to THAT, that they don't even care about pretending it's about the institution of marriage and instead fight against any sort of recognition, any sort of "favor."

That's precisely why I support civil unions by-and-large, because every person has a right to be cared for and loved and a right to care and love no matter their sexual orientation.  Just because I may not agree with their choice doesn't mean they're any less entitled to the same rights as I do.

As for same-sex marriage, what I said in a post earlier in this thread needs clarification.  I don't support it per se, but I feel I don't have a right to discriminate against it with the "Bible" excuse, because we, as Christians, haven't exactly lived up to what the Bible also says about marriage, and I'm talking about DIVORCE.  Its a matter of trying to take the plank out of your eye when i have a log in mine.  So, I don't like gay marriage, and I probably never will, but one thing I have always believed when I point a finger at my good friend, I have three fingers pointing right back at me.  If I were only to open those three fingers and extend the hand of good fellowship and aide to my brothers and sisters.  I guess what I'm trying to get at is I believe gay marriage is wrong, but divorce is equally as wrong, so until we, as Christians, get that plank called divorce out of our eye, we can't see clearly to erradicate gay marriage from the global discussion.

That's a very thoughtful post.

One question I still have though: If you can accept the arguments in favor of civil unions, and you clearly explained your reasoning for that, how can you not support marriage?

Basically, do you believe in the seperation of church and state? If yes, I challenge you to find one argument against full state recognition of marriage. The state cannot recognize religious arguments, and if it does, it is clearly discriminating against people who hold different religious beliefs or none at all.

Any church should be able to marry whoever they want, based on whatever crazy rules they want. That's their business, and they're free to do it.

But the state has no business in playing that game, the state is there to provide worldy representation in a fair and objective manner. Discrminating against two consenting adults that happen to be of the same sex simply isn't acceptable.

Well, remember what I said a long time ago, I'm warming to it, it may take some time for me to get "used" to it.  I do believe in SC&S, and I'm warming to it.  Those are just my Oklahoma roots talking.  I do have my own mind on a lot of things and this is becoming one of them.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Franzl, this has nothing to do with separation of church and state. And even so, that argument would side with the church. The state is interfering with religion's right to define marriage, therefore, the state needs to abandon marriage.

[Senator Franzl]

Franzl, this has nothing to do with separation of church and state. And even so, that argument would side with the church. The state is interfering with religion's right to define marriage, therefore, the state needs to abandon marriage.

Oh even better, I'd love for the state to abandon the concept of marriage, and perhaps issue civil unions to any adult couple, whether heterosexual or homosexual.

But even as it is, the state is not interfering with religion's right to define marriage in any way. Churches have the freedom to recognize whichever marriages they want to. For all I care, they can even deny interracial marriages. That's none of my business.

This is very clearly an issue of seperation of church and state, as the church shouldn't have any say about state policy in regards to unions between two consenting adults.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Franzl, this has nothing to do with separation of church and state. And even so, that argument would side with the church. The state is interfering with religion's right to define marriage, therefore, the state needs to abandon marriage.

Franzl, this has nothing to do with separation of church and state. And even so, that argument would side with the church. The state is interfering with religion's right to define marriage, therefore, the state needs to abandon marriage.

Oh even better, I'd love for the state to abandon the concept of marriage, and perhaps issue civil unions to any adult couple, whether heterosexual or homosexual.

But even as it is, the state is not interfering with religion's right to define marriage in any way. Churches have the freedom to recognize whichever marriages they want to. For all I care, they can even deny interracial marriages. That's none of my business.

This is very clearly an issue of seperation of church and state, as the church shouldn't have any say about state policy in regards to unions between two consenting adults.

The state has no right to regulate what contracts individuals can and cannot enter. I don't care if they are straight or gay. I don't care if they are just two or three friends, hermaphrodites, that just want to have a financial bonding. The state has no right to dictate the terms of said contract, and furthermore, no right to define it. Especially in this circumstance, when it is a clearly religious subject.

It's not just a church issue. Trust me. This is an act of the state intruding on religious grounds. Marriage derives from religion and has integrated into our culture. That doesn't mean our government can define it one way or the other.

[Luóbótè Bèiĕrdé]

The problem with you liberals is I hear someone say: I am for same sex marriage.

My response is: Okay, I'm not.

I say: I am against same sex marriage.

Your response is: OMG BIGOT OMG CAVEMAN HOW DARE YOU SO HEARTLESS BOO FRICKIN HOO@@@!

Naso, the problem with you is that you are incapable of serious thought.

[Lunar]

I am one of the most vocal supporters of gay rights on the forum, and that's certainly not how I view opponents of gay marriage whatsoever.  

Naso is actually right though Xahar,even if it's  just a coincidence.   That is part of our problem....it was not a problem in Maine as far as I am aware, which ran a very sympathetic, logical, and straight-forward campaign messaging-wise, but the white [and you're not white, I know] liberal activists in CA especially hurt the campaign by focusing too much on themselves instead of reaching out to people who have doubts....  and the "white" part is very important to note since the entire campaign  in 2008 was focused on themselves when there really wasn't much of a danger of poor turnout among the No On Prop 8 faithful due to the presidential election

If Maine has proven anything to me, it's proven that the campaigns have to acknowledge the legitimacy of doubts over institutional homosexuality touching children, but shift the burden of proof of the negative.  I mean, how can gay marriage BANS argue that the existing law is going to do something which isn't already happening under the existing law time after time?

Far too many gay rights activists don't understand the viewpoints of people who disagree, and thus are unable to persuade.  Step one would be not calling it gay marriage or calling themselves gay activists, but whatchagonnado?  As Nate Silver has  pointed out, activists should be addressing everything in terms of "same-sex marriage ban" in cases where the populace is potentially rejecting an existing law, in order to frame the rights perspective properly




if any of that makes sense

[sbane]

Franzl, this has nothing to do with separation of church and state. And even so, that argument would side with the church. The state is interfering with religion's right to define marriage, therefore, the state needs to abandon marriage.

Franzl, this has nothing to do with separation of church and state. And even so, that argument would side with the church. The state is interfering with religion's right to define marriage, therefore, the state needs to abandon marriage.

Oh even better, I'd love for the state to abandon the concept of marriage, and perhaps issue civil unions to any adult couple, whether heterosexual or homosexual.

But even as it is, the state is not interfering with religion's right to define marriage in any way. Churches have the freedom to recognize whichever marriages they want to. For all I care, they can even deny interracial marriages. That's none of my business.

This is very clearly an issue of seperation of church and state, as the church shouldn't have any say about state policy in regards to unions between two consenting adults.

The state has no right to regulate what contracts individuals can and cannot enter. I don't care if they are straight or gay. I don't care if they are just two or three friends, hermaphrodites, that just want to have a financial bonding. The state has no right to dictate the terms of said contract, and furthermore, no right to define it. Especially in this circumstance, when it is a clearly religious subject.

But didn't the state dictate who can or cannot enter into contracts with these marriage bans? They have effectively told gays they cannot join into civil contracts on the same terms as heterosexuals. I am all for getting government out of the marriage business and changing the government's definition of "marriage" into civil unions for ALL. Then religious organizations can define marriage on their own terms. But until that day comes when the state doesn't issue marriage licenses, they must extend that right EQUALLY to all of it's residents (and please don't start up the bullsh**t about how gays can get married as long its of the opposite sex and blah blah blah, unless you really believe homosexuality is a choice in which case you are deluded).

[ottermax]

Hey, does anyone know what the composition of the electorate for this election was in Maine? I'm trying to figure out if this would have failed last year or if gay marriage could come back next year.

[sbane]

Hey, does anyone know what the composition of the electorate for this election was in Maine? I'm trying to figure out if this would have failed last year or if gay marriage could come back next year.

I am wondering the same thing. Any sort of exit poll out there?

[Jari Askins for Gov 2010]

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/11/marriage-still-close-in-maine.html

These aren't exit polls, but they are polls taken on Monday, the eve of the elections and it shows that Senior Citizens supported in 59-40 and those under 30 opposed it only 51-48 which is a big advantage for the supporters.

[Holmes]

When the biggest university campus in Maine voted 81% No and with other campuses with similar margins, I can put my hand in fire that the young vote wasn't 51-48.