Same sex marriage outvoted in Maine

[Chibibar]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20091104/us_time/08599193443200;_ylt=AvXFJvTYqF7jOUYYuJGMGrl0fNdF

Dang I don't understand why the government are turning to the public vote. The public unfortunately are easily persuade via scare tactics and plain ignorance. Of course most of the them will vote against it. People fear of getting "the gays"

I personally don't think religious belief should be brought into this. It is two people who want to spend the rest of their lives together and have the same GOVERNMENT benefits that everyone else who are married gets.

even the most "liberal" state like California voted down. The only states that allow marriages are via congress not popular vote.

 

[Armadillo]

It's the word "marriage." Marriage is a religious construct by nature, and therefore people have a very deeply-held view of it. I know many people who wouldn't have a problem with civil unions, but would vote against "gay marriage."

 

[AshburnerX]

My solution? Abolish Marriage as a legal status without a vote and take away EVERYONES benefits. Wait 4-8 years, then introduce "Civil Partnerships" that can be between any two people (as long as your not already in one) and that give the same benefits as the old system. People will straighten up and fly right.

 

[WolfOfOdin]

Man, this is bringing me back to Religion and Politics 101. Specifically the frog-like girl who sat in front and loudly spoke of how "We need to purify this country and tax the non christians". She went on a 20 minute rant about marriage once, proclaiming that she'd personally bomb any and all gay marriage ceremony she could find if they were legalized. That's the kinda crazy you're possibly dealing with here.

 

[Dave]

Man, this is bringing me back to Religion and Politics 101. Specifically the frog-like girl who sat in front and loudly spoke of how "We need to purify this country and tax the non christians". She went on a 20 minute rant about marriage once, proclaiming that she'd personally bomb any and all gay marriage ceremony she could find if they were legalized. That's the kinda crazy you're possibly dealing with here.

 

[Armadillo]

Man, this is bringing me back to Religion and Politics 101. Specifically the frog-like girl who sat in front and loudly spoke of how "We need to purify this country and tax the non christians". She went on a 20 minute rant about marriage once, proclaiming that she'd personally bomb any and all gay marriage ceremony she could find if they were legalized. That's the kinda crazy you're possibly dealing with here.

If it's any consolation, she represents probably 0.00000000000001% of the population. And she probably won't breed, owing to the froginess.

 

[Adam]

I know since we legalized gay marriage in BC that it's been nothing but armageddon. Pestilence, poverty, dogs marrying cats, end of the world kind of stuff.

Also, fuck the frog-lady.

 

[Covar]

I know since we legalized gay marriage in BC that it's been nothing but armageddon. Pestilence, poverty, dogs marrying cats, end of the world kind of stuff.

Also, fuck the frog-lady.

Only after marriage.

 

[drawn_inward]

Dang I don't understand why the government are turning to the public vote. The public unfortunately are easily persuade via scare tactics and plain ignorance. Of course most of the them will vote against it.

Despite their reasons for voting, the people spoke. I do NOT want the government making my decisions for me.

How many people voted for Obama for 'good' reasons? Should their vote not count?

It's a bit underhanded to say that folks voted a certain way b/c they are/were ignorant.

As for the issue of gay marriage, I don't know how to make it equal for all. It seems like no matter what is done, there is someone left out.

 

[Armadillo]

I know since we legalized gay marriage in BC that it's been nothing but armageddon. Pestilence, poverty, dogs marrying cats, end of the world kind of stuff.

Also, fuck the frog-lady.

Only after marriage.[/QUOTE]

 

[Adam]

Dang I don't understand why the government are turning to the public vote. The public unfortunately are easily persuade via scare tactics and plain ignorance. Of course most of the them will vote against it.

Despite their reasons for voting, the people spoke. I do NOT want the government making my decisions for me.

How many people voted for Obama for 'good' reasons? Should their vote not count?

It's a bit underhanded to say that folks voted a certain way b/c they are/were ignorant.

As for the issue of gay marriage, I don't know how to make it equal for all. It seems like no matter what is done, there is someone left out.[/QUOTE]

Left out of ....what exactly?

 

[makare]

Damn. It is a sad day for civil rights.

 

[Baerdog]

Bad news, everyone...

:blue:

 

[Chibibar]

Dang I don't understand why the government are turning to the public vote. The public unfortunately are easily persuade via scare tactics and plain ignorance. Of course most of the them will vote against it.

Despite their reasons for voting, the people spoke. I do NOT want the government making my decisions for me.

How many people voted for Obama for 'good' reasons? Should their vote not count?

It's a bit underhanded to say that folks voted a certain way b/c they are/were ignorant.

As for the issue of gay marriage, I don't know how to make it equal for all. It seems like no matter what is done, there is someone left out.[/QUOTE]

there are certain things that government should enforce (and allow) and some should put to a vote.

I think civil union is one of them (lets remove the word marriage) lots of people have their old ways and well... still Christian base faith or any similar faith that believe same sex is evil, the problem is that these belief have been in place for hundred if not thousands of years (not sure of the exact number) so I don't think these things will change anytime soon.

I have couple of friends who got married in vermont (same sex) there are soooooooo many benefits that hetro couple gets that most of us take it for granted. They live in Dallas now and she tells me it is a huge laundry list of stuff they have to do to ensure they have the basic rights that every other hetro couple gets.

 

[sixpackshaker]

I am a little surprised. I though that the independent streak that runs through New England would not vote against gay marriage.

 

[Adam]

there are certain things that government should enforce (and allow) and some should put to a vote.

What the government gives, it can also take away. I'd rather be governed by majority than by fiat. It does work, it just requires a bit more patience and understanding.

 

[Chibibar]

I am a little surprised. I though that the independent streak that runs through New England would not vote against gay marriage.

I'm not too surprise really.

I think it is all matter of "mental" thinking. Having a non-white person running for office is possible because of all the changes and movement for the last 40 years. Many people today accepts women in the work place, many accepts non-white in their jobs, but the marriage/civil union is "sacred" to many people at least the term.

Maybe in 20-30 from now (since the movement is still new) we might get a change.

 

[Jake]

It seems sometimes that it will take a Constitutional amendment to get gay marriage rights to stick, but the chances of that passing nationwide in the near future are pretty slim.

 

[Cajungal]

Jeez.

 

[Armadillo]

It seems sometimes that it will take a Constitutional amendment to get gay marriage rights to stick, but the chances of that passing nationwide in the near future are pretty slim.

It's worth me mentioning that although I support homosexuals having equal civil union rights to heteros (avoided that "marriage" landmine nicely, son), I'm 100% hardcore OPPOSED to a Constitutional amendment specifically allowing or forbidding marriage of any kind. It's my personal opinion that the 14th Amendment would be sufficient, and any other amendments would be dicking with the Constitution in order to achieve a social desire.

 

[Chibibar]

It seems sometimes that it will take a Constitutional amendment to get gay marriage rights to stick, but the chances of that passing nationwide in the near future are pretty slim.

It's worth me mentioning that although I support homosexuals having equal civil union rights to heteros (avoided that "marriage" landmine nicely, son), I'm 100% hardcore OPPOSED to a Constitutional amendment specifically allowing or forbidding marriage of any kind. It's my personal opinion that the 14th Amendment would be sufficient, and any other amendments would be dicking with the Constitution in order to achieve a social desire.[/QUOTE]

sadly.. I have to agree with this.

Some of you know my stance on this subject (having friends who are struggling trying to be consider "married" in Texas) while there are time I just want to beat people with a stick, I step back and think, how is my thinking any more "right" than their thinking? sure I go by saying "it is a right issue" but to the people who oppose it is a wrong evil thing to even consider it. So if I force my belief unto people, I'm no better than they are.

This is how I see the constitution amendment. It is forcing people to do things (like prohibition look how that turn out)

 

[DarkAudit]

In California, defense of marriage is being taken to it's next logical extreme, banning divorce.

Too bad he's not following Poe's Law here. By mocking the Prop. 8ers instead, he's outed himself as a joke far too soon. Just imagine the chaos if even for a moment the media took his cause seriously.

 

[makare]

I think if we waited for the states there would still be places where women didn't have the right to vote. Just something to think about.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

I think if we waited for the states there would still be places where women didn't have the right to vote. Just something to think about.

Can you imagine if the push for Civil Rights in the 60s left things like desegregating schools up to the states? It's absurd. How are we moving backwards as a nation?

 

[Philosopher B.]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20091104/us_time/08599193443200;_ylt=AvXFJvTYqF7jOUYYuJGMGrl0fNdF

Well, shit.

 

[Armadillo]

I think if we waited for the states there would still be places where women didn't have the right to vote. Just something to think about.

Can you imagine if the push for Civil Rights in the 60s left things like desegregating schools up to the states? It's absurd. How are we moving backwards as a nation?[/QUOTE]

But see, this is where the 14th Amendment kicks in. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It trumps states rights, so if a state passes a law that is unconstitutional, it will be struck down.

 

[Steven Soderburgin]

My solution? Abolish Marriage as a legal status without a vote and take away EVERYONES benefits. Wait 4-8 years, then introduce \"Civil Partnerships\" that can be between any two people (as long as your not already in one) and that give the same benefits as the old system. People will straighten up and fly right.

This is a terrible idea for a few reasons:

1. People who argue against gay marriage using the concept that marriage has always been a religious ceremony are completely ignorant to the real history of marriage and it's place in secular society, so that argument is completely invalid. Government has a place in marriage and this does not conflict with history in any way.

2. People who argue against gay marriage but for civil unions or "civil partnerships" are, by and large, not really interested in protecting marriages, they're interested in marginalizing gays. The turnaround time for anti-gay marriage lobby groups to go from keeping gay marriage rights restricted to civil unions or domestic partnerships to lobbying against those same rights is pretty much zero.

3. Let's think about what would actually happen if this plan was put into place. People against gay marriage would have concrete proof that gays took away and destroyed marriage. Everyone in the country would be keenly aware of this fact. Even if the proposed Civil Partnerships had the same rights, the word does carry weight, and it would cause massive backlash against the gay rights movement, and there would likely be a significant uptick in violence against gays.

4. Finally, why SHOULD we have to create a new institution for gays? That's akin to admitting that gays are SO REPULSIVE that we, as a society, can't allow them any access to this institution with a long, long history in our society. It creates an automatic otherness about gays that makes them not "good enough" or "worthy" of marriage. And in the history of civil rights movements in the country, we've always gone the way of including marginalized groups in our already established institutions, not making new institutions and excluding EVERYONE from the old ones. This is for good reason, not the least of which is that we'd have to create new laws as well as change the language of hundreds of years of existing law and precedent.

It's a good idea in a perfect world where we didn't have the history that goes into a word like marriage, but in a perfect world, we'd have equality already.

 

[Armadillo]

Here's the thing: you'll never EVER separate "marriage" from religion, so you can forget that route. The solution is to take government out of "marriage" altogether, and leave it to each religion to "marry" whomever they want. As for government recognition, have "civil unions" for any two people who want one, gay or straight. All of the rights and privileges of what we know as marriage, without the religious constructs. Bingo bango, church and state are separated, gays and straights are equal, everyone wins!

 

[Steven Soderburgin]

Please re-read point #1 and read about the history of marriage. In our society and every society for hundreds of years, marriage has never been completely tied to religion. I could, if I had a willing female partner, go get a completely secular marriage today without religion ever entering into the equation. The "marriage is always going to be religious" argument is a complete canard. It's not true in any way.

 

[AshburnerX]

Here's the thing: you'll never EVER separate "marriage" from religion, so you can forget that route. The solution is to take government out of "marriage" altogether, and leave it to each religion to "marry" whomever they want. As for government recognition, have "civil unions" for any two people who want one, gay or straight. All of the rights and privileges of what we know as marriage, without the religious constructs. Bingo bango, church and state are separated, gays and straights are equal, everyone wins!

Isn't that exactly what I just suggested? The entire point is to get rid of government involvement with Marriage, while providing a similar system that provides the same benefits for anyone who wants it. Religion gets to keep it's marriage system, the government gets to keep control of who gets tax breaks.

 

[Krisken]

I think I'm staying out of this one. I'm disappointed that religions that follow the teachings of a man who advocated love for each other is used to further bigotry and self righteousness.

That's pretty much it from me.

 

[tegid]

Please re-read point #1 and read about the history of marriage. In our society and every society for hundreds of years, marriage has never been completely tied to religion. I could, if I had a willing female partner, go get a completely secular marriage today without religion ever entering into the equation. The "marriage is always going to be religious" argument is a complete canard. It's not true in any way.

This is what makes me wonder in all these discussions. Don't you already have a 'civil marriage' in the states? Why change the name? I mean, I live in a country with a history of strong religiousness, and when gay marriage was allowed, it was always perfectly understood that it was civil marriage, as we call it. No one feared that the church would be force to marry gays! I don't know, maybe it's because you are a sue happy country and this could actually happen?

 

[Armadillo]

Please re-read point #1 and read about the history of marriage. In our society and every society for hundreds of years, marriage has never been completely tied to religion. I could, if I had a willing female partner, go get a completely secular marriage today without religion ever entering into the equation. The "marriage is always going to be religious" argument is a complete canard. It's not true in any way.

This is what makes me wonder in all these discussions. Don't you already have a 'civil marriage' in the states? Why change the name? I mean, I live in a country with a history of strong religiousness, and when gay marriage was allowed, it was always perfectly understood that it was civil marriage, as we call it. No one feared that the church would be force to marry gays! I don't know, maybe it's because you are a sue happy country and this could actually happen?[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I think it's a little different here. "Civil marriage" is just a marriage that isn't performed by a religious institution. Marriages conducted by churches, synagogues, mosques, and justices of the peace are equally valid in the eyes of the government provided that the proper paperwork has been filled out and the proper fees paid. The thing is, in most states, only those marriages performed between a man and a woman are legally recognized, so any gays who perform a "commitment ceremony" go through the motions of getting married, but legally are still single, without the benefits that come with being married. Many companies have started offering their benefits packages to "spouses or domestic partners," so that's a step forward. And yes, some people are afraid that churches would be forced to marry gays.

---------- Post added at 01:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:08 AM ----------

Isn't that exactly what I just suggested? The entire point is to get rid of government involvement with Marriage, while providing a similar system that provides the same benefits for anyone who wants it. Religion gets to keep it's marriage system, the government gets to keep control of who gets tax breaks.

Kind of, but you want to abolish the practice entirely for "4-8 years," and I'd just have it done right away. What would you do for those gap years in terms of property, benefits, taxes, etc.?

 

[tegid]

Yeah, I think it's a little different here. "Civil marriage" is just a marriage that isn't performed by a religious institution. Marriages conducted by churches, synagogues, mosques, and justices of the peace are equally valid in the eyes of the government provided that the proper paperwork has been filled out and the proper fees paid.

That's pretty much how it works here, I think.

 

[strawman]

I feel that we've had this same exact discussion before, it's like deja vu all over again!

:deadhorse:


:bolt:

-Adam