Maine's Question 1

[Sbane]

I think "Yes" will win in the end. There will be a % of people, who will tell everyone they're voting no, trying to look all gay rights. But in the end, I think there will be some people that at the end of the day, don't feel letting two people of the same sex marry. It didn't pass in California, despite the state's liberalness. If it didn't make it through there, I don't think gay marriage will make it in Maine either.

I think you are overstating California's liberalism, especially social liberalism. Southern California is much more populist than it is liberal. Just see how well Bush did there in 2004. But in a year like 2008 with the economy collapsing they swung back to the democrats. The bay area is of course very socially liberal but it only makes up about 20% of the voting population. The central valley is very socially conservative and so is a large chunk of Southern California. It wouldn't be very surprising if states in the northeast or the pacific northwest states would be more receptive to gay marriage than California. The bay area may be the most liberal metro area in the country on the gay marriage issue, but it doesn't matter as much on the larger scale of California politics.

[Sbane]

I think "Yes" will win in the end. There will be a % of people, who will tell everyone they're voting no, trying to look all gay rights. But in the end, I think there will be some people that at the end of the day, don't feel letting two people of the same sex marry. It didn't pass in California, despite the state's liberalness. If it didn't make it through there, I don't think gay marriage will make it in Maine either.

I think you are overstating California's liberalism, especially social liberalism. Southern California is much more populist than it is liberal. Just see how well Bush did there in 2004. But in a year like 2008 with the economy collapsing they swung back to the democrats. The bay area is of course very socially liberal but it only makes up about 20% of the voting population. The central valley is very socially conservative and so is a large chunk of Southern California. It wouldn't be very surprising if states in the northeast or the pacific northwest states would be more receptive to gay marriage than California. The bay area may be the most liberal metro area in the country on the gay marriage issue, but it doesn't matter as much on the larger scale of California politics.

Yeah, California isn't a tree-hugging pot-smoking hippie social liberal state like most people in the US think it is.

Obviously, go NO.

Well some parts of it most certainly are, but not the whole state is. The bay area is the most liberal area in the country and I am not denying this but it is only 20% of the state. The LA area is about as liberal as any typical northern US metro area. On the issue of gay marriage it didn't vote that much differently than the Detroit or Cleveland metro area (and I am obviously including the IE in the LA area). San Diego is similar. On the issue of pot....well in that regard California is very liberal (north and south) but that is more a testament on how conservative the rest of America is on the issue.

[Sbane]

     I'm surprised the anti-gay marriage side actually did better here than in California, given that I had thought Maine was far more socially liberal.

There is a large rural-urban divide as well on the gay marriage issue. This is why gay marriage does better in an urbanized state like California while failing miserably in a place like Montana even though the importance of religion in the people's lives is about the same. Maine actually places less importance on religion than California and yet voted about the same on gay marriage.

Also were there any exit polls done on this race?

[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).

[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?

[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.

It most certainly is. If the Quakers or the Unitarians want to permit gay marriages, what State has the right to disallow them that ability?

Oh, wait, I forgot - you're only arguing against gay marriage because it's required of you as a Republican.

Where did I argue against gay marriage?

This thread?

[Sbane]

Think before YOU post. Notice I said opposition AND supporters. And no, not a majority. But the face of the campaign. And yes, it is important, because it overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides.

More a matter of misreading than not thinking.

So basically, some people who feel strongly about gay marriage are sometimes asses, which you're bringing up because...you believe it's unique to this issue?

And you're presumably bringing up the campus organization's stupid opinion for some reason, unless you're under the impression that stupid opinions are unique to this issue, or that the stupid opinions having been voiced to you somehow make them significant ().  I'm lost on what that was meant to demonstrate.

And it's important that it "overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides?  First of all, anyone who thinks such people are the "face of the issue" clearly have had little actual ground-level involvement in "the issue."  With few exceptions, those types are kept away from any position of influence.  Bakersfield State University campus organizations are not exactly top-tier campaign officials.  Second, maybe it does...that sucks, and boo people, but what does that have to do with "the issue"?

(You never did reply to this, by the way, you've just re-asserted your contention that it's a non-issue.)

I didn't feel the need to respond to that at the time, for it would require too much typing from me. As you can tell, I prefer to make very short posts.

My overarching point is that both sides are treating it as if it's the end of the world. It's not. It's nothing. I'm refusing to pick a side as a protest. And I honestly do not care one bit whether marriage is this or that or the other thing. I don't believe in any marriage. I'm not gay, I'm not getting married, I'm not religious, and I don't believe the state has the right to issue marriage licenses to ANYONE. Period. None of the arguments on either side have been particularly convincing.

Regardless of your opinion that state's should not be issuing marriage licenses, don't you think that if they are handing it out anyways they should be doing it in an equal fashion?

[Sbane]

Is anyone suprised by the result of the vote?  (I dont feel like reading 44 pages of replies.)

I must say I was surprised, pleasantly surprised.

not surprised. Gay marriage is not popular, even in liberal territory. I'm curious to see if the liberal theory: "it's a question of time because young voters are more gay-friendly" will work. It's based on the fact that young people will not change their mind in future.

Have you ever heard of prop 22? It was a gay marriage ban passed in California in 2000. Guess how much it passed by? It passed by slightly more than a 22 point margin in hippie, tree huggin, librul California. In 2008 it passed by only a 5 point margin. Why will that trend not continue?

Here is a nice little comparison between the two votes. Have fun. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-2008election-prop8prop22,0,333635.htmlstory

[Sbane]

Is anyone suprised by the result of the vote?  (I dont feel like reading 44 pages of replies.)

I must say I was surprised, pleasantly surprised.

not surprised. Gay marriage is not popular, even in liberal territory. I'm curious to see if the liberal theory: "it's a question of time because young voters are more gay-friendly" will work. It's based on the fact that young people will not change their mind in future.

Have you ever heard of prop 22? It was a gay marriage ban passed in California in 2000. Guess how much it passed by? It passed by slightly more than a 22 point margin in hippie, tree huggin, librul California. In 2008 it passed by only a 5 point margin. Why will that trend not continue?

Here is a nice little comparison between the two votes. Have fun. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-2008election-prop8prop22,0,333635.htmlstory

I hate to say this, but the comparison is meaningless.

And why would that be?

[Sbane]

Is anyone suprised by the result of the vote?  (I dont feel like reading 44 pages of replies.)

I must say I was surprised, pleasantly surprised.

not surprised. Gay marriage is not popular, even in liberal territory. I'm curious to see if the liberal theory: "it's a question of time because young voters are more gay-friendly" will work. It's based on the fact that young people will not change their mind in future.

Have you ever heard of prop 22? It was a gay marriage ban passed in California in 2000. Guess how much it passed by? It passed by slightly more than a 22 point margin in hippie, tree huggin, librul California. In 2008 it passed by only a 5 point margin. Why will that trend not continue?

Here is a nice little comparison between the two votes. Have fun. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-2008election-prop8prop22,0,333635.htmlstory

I hate to say this, but the comparison is meaningless.

And why would that be?

Probably because one was a law and one an amendment. And I would agree with that argument if it wasn't for the CA Supreme Court transforming the situation. Nevertheless, one was a vote on a hypothetical, the other on a concrete concept.

And you think people saw a difference? LOL

[Sbane]

And you think that completely eliminates a 20-point gap?

Exactly. Even if it did have some impact at the margins, it was not much. Worst case scenario would have been a 8-10 point margin yes vote if the supreme court had not interfered. Which would still mean that in 8 years, the pro-gay marriage side had gained a 12-14 point margin advantage.