Whole country watching Maine's vote on gay marriage issue

PORTLAND (AP) - Gay marriage has lost in every single state in which it has been put to a popular vote. Come Election Day, gay-rights supporters are hoping to make Maine the exception.

In a referendum that is being closely watched around the country and has drawn millions in out-of-state dollars, Maine voters will decide Tuesday whether to repeal a state law that would allow same-sex couples to marry.

If it is repealed, it will be another major defeat for the gay-rights movement, which saw voters in California put a stop to same-sex weddings there last year. A loss in Maine would be especially heartbreaking, given the way New England has been the region of the country most receptive to gay marriage.

The polls have been difficult to interpret. But both sides say the contest will be extremely close and will hinge on turnout, particularly among the 18-to-25-year-olds who went to the polls in great numbers last year to elect President Barack Obama.

"There's a knot in my stomach," said Steve Ryan of Buxton, who operates a property management business with his partner of 34 years, Jim Bishop. "We're very encouraged, and we're very worried at the same time."

Gay-marriage supporters have framed the issue as a matter of equality for all families, straight or gay. Opponents say that allowing same-sex couples to wed would be a dangerous social experiment and that Maine's domestic registry law could simply be bolstered to give gays additional legal rights.

"The stakes are very high for both sides. The gay marriage community has never won at the ballot box before on a straight up-or-down vote," said Frank Schubert, who coordinated the campaign to override California's highest court and repeal gay marriage there.

Over the past five years, 26 states have passed constitutional amendments limiting marriage to a man and a woman.

The Maine law was passed by the Legislature last spring but never went into effect because of a petition drive by opponents. Five other states have legalized gay marriage: Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont - all in New England - and Iowa. All five of them did it by way of court or legislative action, not referendums.

"California was just a dress rehearsal for Maine," said Christian Potholm, a political science professor at Bowdoin College in Brunswick.

In related action Tuesday, voters in Washington state will decide whether to expand their domestic partnership law, and people in Kalamazoo, Mich., will consider whether to prohibit discrimination against gays.

In Portland, boisterous supporters of gay marriage - many of them students - far outnumbered the other side at the University of Southern Maine debate last week.

Enthusiasm for gay marriage has swept the campus, said Leigh Charest, 19. "People feel it's right and they want to do as much as they can," Charest said.

In addition to reaching out to young people, gay-marriage defenders have tried to make the campaign about the "Maine values" of personal freedom - the flinty, just-let-me-be attitude embodied by Maine's rugged lobstermen, loggers and outdoorsmen.

The pro-gay-marriage side has "very adeptly said this is not a campaign about telling people what they have to do. It's about allowing people the independence to do what they want to do. That's a basic, firm Maine value," said Sandy Maisel, director of the Goldfarb Center for Public Affairs and Civic Engagement at Colby College in Waterville.

Philip Spooner, an 87-year-old World War II medic and ambulance driver, became an Internet sensation thanks to his testimony in favor of gay marriage at a public hearing.

On the video, viewed more than a half-million times on YouTube, the retired truck driver and laundry operator and lifelong Republican from Biddeford said he raised four boys - three straight, one gay - and expected them to be treated the same.

"It takes all kinds of people to make the world go," he said. "It doesn't make sense that some people who love each other can marry and others can't, just because of who they are. This is what we fought for in World War II, that idea that we can be different and still be equal."

As in California, the National Organization for Marriage has been a major contributor, funneling $1.5 million to those fighting same-sex marriage in Maine.

The New Jersey-based organization has come under fire for refusing to release the names of its contributors as required by Maine law, saying the measure violates the First Amendment. The state ethics commission is investigating.

Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...

In order to make comments, you must verify your account.

In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your profile. A member of our staff will call you to verify this information. To join in, fill out your user profile completely and check the box "please verify my status." We'll get back to you within one business day to verify your account.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned.

Advertisement

Displaying comments, from newest to oldest

MeinMaine's picture
verified

Applauding DR as well,

Applauding DR as well, thanks for the awesome post! I can't wait until today is over for sure.

DR's picture

I don't give a flaming toot

I don't give a flaming toot about who gets married to who, as long as everyone's a consenting adult in their right minds and not harassing anybody else.

How about an issue that is actually relevant to nearly all of us? Such as
Question 2, “Do you want to cut the rate of the municipal excise tax by an average of 55% on motor vehicles less than six years old and exempt hybrid and other alternative-energy and highly fuel-efficient motor vehicles from sales tax and three years of excise tax?”

SURE, why not? All those folks who just got an enormous cash incentives for trading in their old (and often perfectly serviceable) car to decadently splurge on a shiny new one, should now be given a 45% excise tax cut on top of what they already got? Are you freakin' kidding me? And why should owners of some cars be entirely exempt from paying their fair share of taxes? Reasonable incentives are one thing. Giving big tax breaks to only the people who can afford or are irresponsible enough to take on a new or used car loan is insane. How about those of us still driving around in old cars that actually get BETTER gas mileage than some newer, so-called economy cars? What breaks do we get?

And how about giving property tax breaks for people who happen to live in towns where the officials are guilty of unbridled waste, or simply spend irresponsibly, while people can barely afford to buy or keep a decent home due to skyrocketing taxes?

Oh no. Let's not think about issues directly affecting our ability to pay for the necessities of life. Let's waste breath arguing about who marries who.

Raven's picture

*stands and applauds* You

*stands and applauds* You have a very good point!

starsmyles's picture

Joins raven in applause

Joins raven in applause ..well said DR I whole heartedly agree.

SRV's picture

Think BYS, I will try and

Think BYS, I will try and answer your question if you would do the same with the question I posed to you. I do not believe that same sex couples are truly after the "institution of marriage" (the rights afforded thereunder) but rather that believe that knocking down any distinction between them and opposite sex marriages is a major step towards wide spread societal acceptance that there is no difference between the nature of their relationship and that of a marriage where, at least for many, one major reason for the union is to have children. That is also one major reason why our state and federal laws provide incentives to enter into such a relationship. Obviously many people get married who have intention of having children and that rationale falls by the wayside since those people receive the benefits anyway but nevertheless one of the reasons why those laws were drafted was to encourage married individuals to have children. As I also said earlier, I may very well vote "no" simply because I believe granting the rights outweigh reservations about insisting upon the term marriage and no other, but again, the law draws distinctions and places labels on many similar but no identical legal relationships.

SRV's picture

Wrong, an honest reading of

Wrong, an honest reading of my posts simply reflects that my point that the vast the majority of separate but equal race cases involved vastly unequal situations, even if "Brown" did not. My point was simply that not all differences in treatment are equivalent. As I said, why else would the law insist on differentiating between fathers, and step fathers, adopted children from those born to a couple, common law marriage from those that are registered, etc. How are any of these legally sanctioned distinctions any different?

thinkbeforeyouspeak's picture

OK, I'm a dishonest reader.

OK, I'm a dishonest reader. Fine. But at least I do read and respond to your queries. One of my questions to you still stands, though: Why exclude gays and lesbians from the institution of marriage? If you want to maintain a separate category of union for them, there must be a reason. What is it? Do you have an answer?

SRV's picture

No one is debating the

No one is debating the wisdom of segragation. But there is a world of difference between state sanctioned separation of the races and handing handing out a different colored form to one type of union to differentiate it from another.

thinkbeforeyouspeak's picture

And, to be clear, you were

And, to be clear, you were actually debating the wisdom of segregation. Don't try to wriggle out of the position you took. You were the one who implied that maintaining separate categories of treatment is justified as long as the categories of treatment are tangibly equivalent. That, my friend, is the essence of the logic of Plessy v. Ferguson.

thinkbeforeyouspeak's picture

But my question to you

But my question to you remains: Why exclude gays and lesbians from the institution of marriage? If you want to maintain a separate category of union for them, there must be a reason. What is it?

SRV's picture

The "separate but equal"

The "separate but equal" analogy doesn't fly because the laws struck down in race cases almost universally always involved institutions (lodging, restaurants...) that were patently not equal. The fact that say a green tinted form might be handed to those seeking a fully vested civil union, while a blue one might be handed to those seeking marriage, if all rights given under either is the same, is hardly the same as requiring those of different races to be in separate railcars, schools or restaurants.

thinkbeforeyouspeak's picture

Wrong. When the U.S.

Wrong. When the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Plessy v. Ferguson (which it did in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision), it held that "in the field of public education, the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." There is no implication here that making the facilities equal in concrete ways (e.g., equal funding) would ameliorate the problem. They say clearly: "Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does." Later, they say, "Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system." Similar arguments could be made were we to sanction a legal separation between marriage for straights and a kind of "marriage but by a different name" for gays and lesbians. The state would be sanctioning a legal distinction that reinforces a societal stigma. That's why I oppose it.

Raven's picture

Was I the only one who saw

Was I the only one who saw Sunday's paper, which had the list of 106 MAINE BASED RELIGIOUS OFFICIALS - pastors, clergymen, reverends, etc., from all different faiths, urging people to VOTE NO on QUESTION 1?? If the men who lead these churches are standing behind gay marriage, why are so many of you using religion as a reason to vote against it?

And besides, what ever happened to separation of church and state? They are voting on a bill, people, not trying to rewrite the bible. And on that note, I believe that much of the bible is open to interpretation, anyway - I've seen so many people of the same faith read the same passage and explain it in many different ways. Who are WE to say we KNOW for SURE what GOD WANTS?

Put yourself in their shoes ... how would you feel if your rights were taken away?

tron's picture

I think everyone has made up

I think everyone has made up their minds already and nothing anyone says will change it. Therefore vote tomorrow and see who wins round one!

SRV's picture

"ThinkBYS," there is

"ThinkBYS," there is obviously nothing "wrong" with people who are gay. However, the law uses the word "step," "half," "adopted" before father, mother, or child etc. to identify the nature of that legal relationship to others in that family even though a "stepfather," "halfbrother," or "adopted" child are obviously no less important or should be treated any differently than an actual father, brother or a child born to a couple rather than adopted. While I may still vote "No" simply because I still believe that granting the legal rights involved may be more important that not doing so just because of insistance on the word "marriage," I do fear that by insisting on that term and declaring anything else the equivalent of a "Plessy v Ferguson" violation is semantics over substance and alienates others who would otherwise say, find any other word, and we'll support you in droves and really tick off those who are motivated against gays purely by hate or fear.

thinkbeforeyouspeak's picture

I don't know family law well

I don't know family law well enough to judge whether the analogy you draw is valid, or even if it is, whether I would consider the use of those legal terms to be necessary. (It's also funny that you invoke that analogy to salvage your position, at the same time that you imply that *I* am valuing semantics over substance.) In any case, it still doesn't make a case for legally reinforcing a hurtful stigma by implying that gays and lesbians are somehow different in a way that justifies excluding them from the institution of marriage. If there's nothing wrong with gays or lesbians why would we treat them that way? It's tantamount to telling them that they're second class citizens.

98civb18c's picture

OK here it is the defition

OK here it is the defition of bigot- a person who is utterly intolerant ofany differing creed, belief, or opinion.
Found on dictionary.com

SRV's picture

Jon, Glad to know I do not

Jon, Glad to know I do not actually "exist," but the fact is that I have no problem whatsoever extending every legal right (adoption, medical decisions, spousal insurance...)afforded to long term committed sex couples as those available to married individuals because it is my belief that an individual's orientation is set at birth and neither environment nor exposure to "gay" people or lifestyle has anything to do with who you become. I supported both the addition of orientation protection to the law as well as the creation of the same sex registry to at least make a step towards granting some of the rights given to married couples. The fact that others may vote against this measure out of spite, or fear, or even hate, does not mean that all others who vote the same way have the same motivation.

thinkbeforeyouspeak's picture

SRV, see my earlier comment

SRV, see my earlier comment in reply to you. If I read your correctly, you're planning to vote "yes" on 1 in order to limit the term "marriage" to opposite-sex couples. (Correct me if I'm wrong, and you actually plan to vote "no.") If that's true, I wonder what you think is wrong with gays and lesbians that justifies excluding them from the institution of marriage?

jalbrecht1's picture
verified

"...even to those who are

"...even to those who are fully committed to granting the full range of legal rights to same sex couples under any other name but "marriage,".. No such people exist. The Yes folks are just throwing that out now to create the false impression that they now support civil unions. The don't. They opposed the domestic registry. They opposed civil unions. And now they oppose Marriage Equality. Read Mrs McG posts. This is about legitimizing gays in her eyes. Not about marriage at all. Read the other similiar posts. Look at Yon1 advertizing. Nothing they have to say has anything to do with marriage. What they want is to eliminate gays. There is no positive Yes on 1 message. Jon Albrecht Dixfield

98civb18c's picture

Jon I do think Gay should

Jon
I do think Gay should have civil union under the law I just dont see why they need to have the marrage label. If this is about two people in love then why do they need to have any label. This whole thing is about money. I think that gays should be able to have a civil union relationship and take care of one another.

Genisek2004's picture
verified

In civil unions aren't they

In civil unions aren't they denied filing joint tax returns and end of life issues can be very tricky if immediate family desire it to be so.

98civb18c's picture

Genisek2004 think about this

Genisek2004 think about this for a minute the only real thing gays are denied as of right know is the tax return. that is it this whole thing is about money. Any person can name any other person their PA. Also Maine already have civil union. so forget love forget equilty the whole thing is for money.

98civb18c's picture

yes they are denied the

yes they are denied the joint taxes but the end of life stuff is quite easy to fix so that the spouse can have complete control. By have power of atterony giving to the spouse a person can make all the decision for the spouse in the hospital. The civil union is a fair way to solve this issue making all but a few on either side happy.

alex79's picture

Why should gay couples have

Why should gay couples have to go through the extra step of getting power of attorney when hetero couples don't?

Mrs. McG's picture

Hold de door! I WILL! NOT!

Hold de door! I WILL! NOT! stand for being described as someone who stands against gay PERSONS! or as you put it "legitimizing gays." I WILL. NOT. STAND FOR IT! I am wholly in favor of UPHOLDING the DIGNITY of ALL persons, including those with same-sex attaction. I have friends and family whom I love and am committed to treating with equal respect and dignity. So, I cannot bear being drawn up as someone who seeks to depersonalize individuals with same-sex attraction. My desire is quite the opposite, I assure you.

What I am squarely opposed to is societal institution, acceptance and endorsement of sexual acts contrary to human dignity. And, if you know anything about the gay subculture, they as much as admit that this fight for "marriage equality" is less about marriage than seeking cultural normalization of their sexual preferences.

gdls1's picture

Mrs. McG, (I still have a

Mrs. McG,
(I still have a hard time with the irony of your using the MRS. title...it's kind of like shoving it in the face of all the lesbians who cannot use that title. But that's another issue.)
You continue to imply that you are not homophobic. Yet you seem to have a problem with the SEX aspect of it. You say "same-sex attraction" is okay, but not the act of sex between two people of the same gender -- that's deviant and perverse. (I know, you're probably cringing just reading that.) But if you cannot accept the whole person, as you insist on denying them any fulfillment of their instinctive sexual desires, then you are indeed homophobic.

Mrs. McG's picture

Donna - I find that comment

Donna -

I find that comment regarding the irony of my "Mrs." rather funny, since I'm more likely to have chosen it not with lesbians in mind than married, heterosexual feminists who opt for the ambiguous "Ms." -- throwing off the patriarchy and all that. And, you'll forgive me for using your first name - I always read gdls1 as "godless one" and none of us is godless. Anyway...

RE: Homophobia - In reality, a "phobia" describes someone who has an irrational and uncontrollable pathological fear of someone or something. I have no such pathology with regard to persons with same-sex attraction. I do not fear them; I do not hate them - la la la, ad nauseam. Can anyone hear me yet?

People generally do not give a free pass to everyone to fulfill any instinctive sexual desire whatsoever. I am not unjustly discrimating against the bigamist when I say his desire for more than one wife is not in keeping with the dignity of marriage or women.

I do accept and love the whole person when I accept a person with same-sex attraction. But same-sex attraction is an element of human brokeness, not wholeness. But I love whole persons even when that means not enabling the desires stemming from human brokeness. If my husband is given to alcoholism, do I love him less because I do not accept his drinking? What if he was genetically predispositioned to alcoholism? Am I being unfair in denying him free and easy access to alcohol - even discouraging him from drinking?

gdls1's picture

Ms. McG, My chosen screen

Ms. McG,
My chosen screen name is gdls1. I do not appreciate your dismissive disregard and disrespect. Beneath you verbally intelligent discourse, you are indeed a homophobic person.

Mrs. McG's picture

My apologies. I sincerely

My apologies. I sincerely thought it less depersonalizing to use a name. And, since internet conversations can get out of hand when we fail to realize the person on the other end of the screen reading is indeed a person, I prefer to personalize as much as possible. No disrespect meant.

I find your repeated assurance that I am indeed, without doubt, "homophobic" as mean and judgemental as it is irrational. People who disagree with you are not necessarily at heart hateful people. I'm sorry for you that you see me and others in the world so inflexibly.

tron's picture

Susie you're a real piece!

Susie you're a real piece! And since you are now from "away" you really don't have a dog in this fight, so leave it to us brave Maine souls who care for this state and don't abandon it's when convenient.

Mrs. McG's picture

Abandon it when it's

Abandon it when it's convenient. How nice. You're not only a judgemental fellow - you're a liar bent on smearing those who disagree with you. You asked me in a previous thread why I left the state and I told you my husband's job required the move. There's a major difference between convenience and livelihood. And since this vote affects the lives of my immediate family, it sure as heck affects me. And, as you the saying goes, "As Maine goes, so goes the nation." Are you really so insecure about the strength or rigteousness of your side of the issue that you have to decry someone's right to speak about it in comment boxes?

Joseph's picture
verified

As laudable as your

As laudable as your assertion may TRY to be . . . it's nothing more than an oxymoronic statement. What you're clearly stating is a homosexual's "dignity" not withstanding, you will not stand for sexual deviants trying to assert themselves into society. But trying to be nice about it all the while. OK, fine. But what you wrote really just smacks of "No, I'm not prejudiced, really I'm not. Some of my best friends are (insert type of person here)."

Mrs. McG's picture

What exactly I am trying to

What exactly I am trying to say is exactly what I said. I am not for institutionalizing deviant, self-damaging, societally damaging behaviors, no. However, as opposed to prejudice against anti-semitism and racism, which is based solely on birth and geneaology, my opposition to same-sex marriage stems from opposition to a destructive behavior which is something freely chosen, even if the attraction is not freely chosen. In the same way I would be opposed to normalizing alcoholism, even though there is evidence of genetic predisposition to that behavior. The critical distinction is between behaviors and persons.

Joseph's picture
verified

Homosexuals are not deviant,

Homosexuals are not deviant, self-damaging, societal misfits. And this isn't an issue about sex and your disgust and objections about it. This is about dignity, fairness and civil equality. I pay my taxes and take care of the responsibilities of life faithfully. I want no more out of life than what everyone else has. I deserve to live my life as equally as my brother. Prejudice is a stalwart belief that one person is superior to another or group of people via unreasonable and unfair actions or words. To equate gay couples whom wish to marry as deviant is unfair, unjust, prejudiced and pretty darn mean. So write on and on . . . and on as you have. It's merely hot hair, taking up more scrolling space on a newspaper's web site. I suggest you retire for the evening and let a few others have at it.

Mrs. McG's picture

"Homosexuals are not

"Homosexuals are not deviant, self-damaging, societal misfits."

This is what you keep trying to do to my statements. This is EXACTLY what I ADAMANTLY OPPOSE having done - classifying the individual as the behavior or as equal to the behavior.

Sodomy is deviant sexual *behavior* - a deviant sexual choice. However, that does not mean I believe persons with same-sex attractions are inherently deviant persons. When my toddler does something naughty, I don't tell her "SHE" is naughty - what she has DONE is naughty. She is not the bad thing she does. She is not a "bad girl," but scribbling on Mama's buffet table is bad, and I ain't just being closed minded about the issue and I do still LOVE my girl.

Joseph's picture
verified

Symantecs. You're parsing

Symantecs. You're parsing words and splitting hairs. Deriding homosexuals for no other reason than the sexual act while simultaneously extolling their virtue as human beings is an incompatible argument. Your arguments read hollow. Vacuous. A white elephant. A paper tiger. Tempest in a teapot. Shall I go on? I'm assuming you're voting yes? Fine then, vote. But afterwhich, I seriously hope you consider getting off this razor thin line you sit upon and decide once and for all how you plan on treating your fellow gay and lesbian neighbors. Loving them and all the while hating what they do is still an oxymoron.

Mrs. McG's picture

No, this is not a matter

No, this is not a matter semantics. It is a matter of using words according to their meanings - you are conflating person with action. And, you know in your heart that it is no more an oxymoron to love persons with same-sex attraction and call acting upon their sexual inclinations sinful than it is to love even myself and call acting upon my inclinations to lose my temper sinful. The reality is that anyone we love is going to also at some time choose to do something which is wrong - maybe even habitually. The answer to this reality is not to deny reality and call the act "good" which we know is really "bad."

Rinoblast's picture

Sodomy occurs in over 1,000

Sodomy occurs in over 1,000 animal species (look it up). And if animals are not sentient beings making a choice, their actions therefor must be natural. Therefor, in the world we live in, sodomy is a naturally occurring act for them. Not a big stretch to think it's natural for us too.

Mrs. McG's picture

Many animals also eat their

Many animals also eat their young - some, like the praying mantis will eat their mates - are you advocating that because this happens in the natural world that human persons with the same inclinations follow suit and we should as a society just accept that?

gdls1's picture

Homosexual acceptance is not

Homosexual acceptance is not about scribbling on your buffet table. Sex between two women or two men is not bad behavior. It seems that way to you because you have a homophobic gene. You were probably born that way.

Mrs. McG's picture

You miss the essential

You miss the essential point: Person A can love Person B, even when Person B does something Person A judges is a wrongful act.

alex79's picture

I get it you still care for

I get it you still care for a gay person you just hate and think a sex act they do is wrong. Great. I get it. But why does that mean you have the right to outlaw a gay person from marring who they love?

Mrs. McG's picture

Thank you! I'm glad someone

Thank you! I'm glad someone gets it! Because I don't believe the purpose of marriage is to give societal advantages to two people *solely* because they are "in love" and want to make a public relationship commitment to one another - not even for heterosexual couples. Marriage exists for the purpose of giving stability to families and society. Our rights as individuals within society are related to our duties. Heterosexuals have a duty to procreate for the sake of the propagation of humanity. They have a right to marriage (which is intended to be until death do part) to see to give stability to the family unit and by extension, society.

But homosexuals may adopt, and these children by adoption need a stable family unit. I agree they do need a stable family unit. But I do not agree with placing children with homosexual couples. I grew up in a family with one parent because one of my parents died when I was still young. The effects of growing up without a father in the house or even a father figure was pretty seriously detrimental. It was unfortunate that my father should have died. But to choose not to give children parents of both sexes purposely is wrong. Human beings need the influence of complementary sexes to grow up pyschologically and emotionally.

There are heterosexual couples I wouldn't let adopt a dog, and persons with same sex attraction I would wholeheartedly trust to babysit my child. But fundamentally, I believe the duty of raising children requires mothers and fathers.

thinkbeforeyouspeak's picture

If that second paragraph

If that second paragraph describes your love for your gay and lesbian friends and family, and your commitment to "treating [them] with equal respect and dignity," I can only say that, ma'am, you have a rather odd definition of "love," "respect," and "dignity."

Mrs. McG's picture

Sometimes my daughter wants

Sometimes my daughter wants (or thinks she wants) something I know will cause her harm. Is it loving to say to her: "Do whatever makes you happy, darling." when I know the consequences of that desire?

thinkbeforeyouspeak's picture

OK, my turn: What evidence

OK, my turn: What evidence do you have that allowing same-sex couples to marry would be harmful?

Mrs. McG's picture

Ultimately, I am speaking on

Ultimately, I am speaking on a spiritual level. Depersonalizing sex acts are harmful to a person's soul - in an objective sense (I don't wish to judge anyone as the stand before God on a personal level - there are mitigating factors of culpability).

But even in a secular and naturalistic sense, there is long-standing evidence that gay men can be expected to have shorter lives, more sexually transmitted diseases and other serious health risks: Male homosexuals are prone to cancer (especially anal cancer, which is almost unheard-of in male heterosexuals) and various sexually transmitted diseases, including urethritis, laryngitis, prostatitis, hepatitis A and B, syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, herpes, and genital warts (which are caused by the human papilloma virus, which also causes genital cancers). Lesbians are at lower risk for STDs but at high risk for breast cancer. Homosexuals of both sexes have high rates of drug abuse, including cocaine, marijuana, LSD and other psychedelics, barbiturates, and amyl nitrate. (See http://www.catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp under the title "What does the scientific evidence show about homosexuality?," and footnotes for concurring research.)

Homosexuals are more prone to suicide - 31/2 times more likely (and are even more prone to suicide than heterosexuals in cultures where same-sex relationships are approved and affirmed), domestic abuse between partners of the same sex has a remarkably higher incidence rate than among opposite sex couples. The list goes on - the high rates of promiscuity which is normative behavior for homosexuals (even homosexuals claiming to be in committed relationships) is never psychologically, emotionally, or physically healthy (and neither is such behavior likewise healthy for heterosexuals).

Should I continue?

gdls1's picture

"Depersonalizing sex acts

"Depersonalizing sex acts are harmful to a person's soul"... Mrs. McG, that is pure "judgement" on your part, and I think it's against your religion.

thinkbeforeyouspeak's picture

I went to the

I went to the http://www.catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp site and did a wee bit of research, starting with the footnotes. It's best to be a critical consumer of such material, rather than take it at face value (even if it supports your preconceived notions). Anyway, your claim that "Homosexuals are more prone to suicide - 3 1/2 times more likely" is similar to (and probably based on) their claim that "Homosexuals of both sexes remain ... 3½ times more likely to commit suicide successfully." which is based on Footnote 48. Fortunately, I have electronic access to the journal Pediatrics, which is what that footnote refers to. Having just downloaded it (and because I am at work, and thus have other duties), I can't read the entire article now. (But I suspect that Mrs. McG has not even laid eyes on it.) But even at a glance, I can tell that the authors conducted a study of gay and lesbian adolescents who self-identified as gay and lesbian at that age. As they note, this group may not be representative of all gays and lesbians. So it's wrong to imply that they are, as the article at catholic.com does. As the authors of the original empirical report note, "Although this study identifies a subsample of GLB [gay, lesbian, and bisexual] youth that is disproportionately at risk for a number of negative health outcomes and risk behaviors, it is important to realize that the majority of GLB youth cope with a variety of stressors to become healthy and productive adults. GLB youth, such as those who have not used drugs or initiated sexual activity, as well as those who may self-identify until adulthood, may not have the same high-risk profile as our study population." Although even some of the premises in this quote are debatable, it is noteworthy that the researchers exercise caution in interpreting their findings. This is a mark of someone at least trying to do good science, as opposed to someone (or some church) with an ideological cause to advance, who cherrypicks and distorts the evidence. It's also worth noting that the authors of the original empirical report place the high risk behavior of their sample into a broader context: "Homosexual, bisexual, and other adolescents confronting issues of sexual expression or orientation have been identified as facing stresses including emotional isolation, social rejection, and lowered self-esteem...These issues challenge many adolescents' emotional and psychological development and most likely contribute to the risk of developing the syndrome of risk behaviors that Jessor [another researcher] describes" including suicide attempts. To but it briefly, adolescents who self-identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual face special risks, including rejection and isolation, much of which is by their peers who are not supportive of them. If so, this does not describe any harm inherent in being gay. Rather, it is a reminder to the rest of us of the harm we can do when tell gays and lesbians that they are less than the rest of us, or imply it with our actions. So, Mrs. McG, if you are really all that concerned about children, I urge you to think about what the effect will be on gay and lesbian adolescents, who are already struggling with their identity, if the voters of the state of Maine say tomorrow that gay and lesbian couples are second-class citizens? After all, that's what a "yes" vote on Issue 1 says, even if you refuse to see it or admit to it.

Mrs. McG's picture

Please consider the

Please consider the following then and the attached link:

"'Over the past 10 years [Government] have contracted with experts on gay, lesbian, bisexual health to produce studies ... issues affecting queer Canadians includes lower life expectancy than the average Canadian, suicide, higher rates of substance abuse, depression, inadequate access to care and HIV/AIDS... all kinds of health issues that are endemic to our community... higher rates of anal cancer in the gay male community, lesbians have higher rates of breast cancer ... more GLBT people in this country who die of suicide each year than die from AIDS, there are more who die early deaths from substance abuse than die of HIV/AIDS... now that we can get married everyone assumes that we don't have any issues ... A lot of the deaths that occur in our community are hidden ... Those of us who are working on the front lines see them and I'm tired of watching my community die'"

They claim "homophobia" to be the cause. This confuses me because when I was active in the gay community in the 80's there was much more "homophobia" and much less social acceptance. Yet the statistics are much worse now, even though gay marriage is legal in Canada, and gay sex is pretty well normalized."

http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/why_catholics_against_gay_marriage.htm

You and I are going to fundamentally disagree as to the source of angst existing in those with same-sex attraction. Neither of us desires their deep angst or self-destruction. But I hope others will come to understand that opposition to gay marriage is not based on "hatred" or "fear" or the desire to impose unjust discrimination upon a class of people we simply "don't like" by all who oppose it.

thinkbeforeyouspeak's picture

Well, yes, I suppose that if

Well, yes, I suppose that if you only base your opinions on right wing activists who rely on either their personal experiences alone, or on data that they cherry pick and/or distort, then we are bound to disagree. So be it.

Mrs. McG's picture

d

d

Mrs. McG's picture

For more information, please

For more information, please see following linke (requires Adobe Acrobat) - sources cited within text:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/features/marriage_defence/SSM_MD_evidence.pdf

Genisek2004's picture
verified

Where did you get your

Where did you get your statistics? Obviously not from working in healthcare.

Raven's picture

Notice that all of her

Notice that all of her "statistics" come from a Catholic website, and we all know where the Catholic church stands on gay marriage. How about some statistics from a neutral source?

Mrs. McG's picture

Actually, the Catholic

Actually, the Catholic website cites secular sources. So, look at the primary sources before discounting the information out-of-hand.

Mrs. McG's picture

See linked article and

See linked article and footnoted sources.

jp's picture

I am so tired of this

I am so tired of this debate. I think it would be easier to do away with marriage all together and only have civil unions. Wouldn't that solve the problem and free up a lot of money to support our state?

John 28's picture

That's the way to go jp.

That's the way to go jp. This way all so call 'straight married' people will then be in equal rights with the gays and loose over 1000 rights that they had. So let's match them to gays and see how they like it?

jalbrecht1's picture
verified

Gil, you are a conservative

Gil, you are a conservative so you don't believe words have meanings and even if you did words are just there to allow you to manipulate people who don't understand. Bigot has a meaning and when someone writes like a bigot, thinks like a bigot, and proposes to take actions that only a bigot would take. Well then he's a bigot.
Jon Albrecht Dixfield

jalbrecht1's picture
verified

Mrs. McG, Saving western

Mrs. McG,
Saving western civilization is not involved in this law. "....is confirmed by the near-universal history of civilization." Hardly. Polygamy is the form of family that has near-universal support thoughtout history. Nor does it have anything to do with education. As you point out they have taught sex education before and they will again. They didn't need this law to do it either. Marriage Equality neither helps nor hurts teaching sex to 14 year olds.
Jon Albrecht Dixfield

Mrs. McG's picture

While polygamous marriage

While polygamous marriage has had historical and cultural recognition, gay marriage never has. Gay marriage seeks its foundation upon love feelings and sexual attraction. Even from a secular historical view, these motives have not traditionally served as the foundation of marriages. Primarily, this is so because such purposes lead to significant familial instability within society rather than stability. The high rate of divorce in our present culture indicates the effect of marriages based primarily (often solely) on the foundation of love feelings and sexual attraction. While such feelings and attractions add an exquisitely beautiful dimension to many marriages, they cannot serve as the foundation of marriage if we are to have stability within the family and society at large.

In some cultures, polygamy did serve as a stabilizing institution within society where there was a significantly disproportionate ratio of men to women. Large numbers of men were killed in warfare in the ancient world, which would leave many, many women vulnerable and without sustenential provision. While obviously not the ideal state for marriage, polygamist households were a far better alternative for women than prostitution, slavery, or starvation.

Obviously, modern society neither requires nor desires polygamous marriage. The ratio between men and women is far more proportionate than it was in ancient times and we have a plethora of alternatives to ensure that a single woman's livelihood does not require marriage. Moreover, marriage between one man and one woman protects the personal dignity and uniqueness of women.

Genisek2004's picture
verified

I find all this blogging

I find all this blogging interesting. A point I would like to make: Why do some of you think if the vote NO takes the win that our teens will increase their experimentation with homosexuality? They already are...ask teens in high school - homosexual & bisexual experimentation is very prevalent. I am really struggling with this issue as I see the arguments on both sides as having some validity. It would make it easier if I could join you in an affirmative yea or nea...but with any ethical issue it is not that simple.

98civb18c's picture

genisek2004 I am glad that

genisek2004
I am glad that you are looking for opinions and facts to base your vote. I wish to tell you why I am voting yes on 1 and please remember this is just my opinion and you are going to see a lot more come up. Although I don't agree with the gay lifestyle I do agree that what two people do in there home is there business. The reason I am voting yes is that 1 the only difference marrage and civil union is the tax break. so break it down on both sides and the issue is money. 2 also where will there wants end. think about this the gay communty say they dont care if they get married in a church or a a barn as long as they are married. The new law even says a church has the right to not marry gays. but isn't that discrimation a group would be allowed to deny gays the right to marry solly because they are gay. final point is that to be that love each other don't have to be married to love each other. Genisek2004 I hope you make upper your decision from your own mind and not listen to the bible thumpers or the intellegent people that can only say bigot.

Mrs. McG's picture

Regarding homosexual

Regarding homosexual experimentation among teens: Yes, that's absolutely true - because sexual integrity is attacked on so many fronts within our culture and because even going back to 1990 the Auburn Schools system included information about sexual acts between homosexuals in Health classes taught to 14-year-olds.

Winning the "yes" vote won't overturn our present cultural situation, but a "no" vote will make all efforts on all other cultural fronts difficult to the point of near impossible.

mainermike's picture

AS I SEE IT, by Mainer Mike

AS I SEE IT, by Mainer Mike Brown

It must be so hard to be gay in a world where it's still considered OK for others to rationalize that inequality for gays is what God wants.

justlikeyou's picture

But you see......God DOESN'T

But you see......God DOESN'T want people to be homosexual. How would I know this you ask? Because it's in His written Word in black and white. Yeah, yeah, yeah, God is a "God of love" but there's ALWAYS a little condition attached to His mercifulness........ONLY if one follows His Word, which happens to include not practicing in acts He considers an abomination. God abhors homosexuality NOW every bit as much as He did millennia ago. Hebrews 13:8 folks. But hey, all this stuff has to come to pass.....that's written in the Bible too, so it's all good, but better have the Seal of The Lord in your mind though.

news4u's picture

So God's love now comes with

So God's love now comes with strings attached?

thinkbeforeyouspeak's picture

I don't think I have the

I don't think I have the "Seal of the Lord" in my mind. But I did have a dream about a walrus once. Do I get points for that?

Mrs. McG's picture

Persons with same-sex

Persons with same-sex attraction are equal in personal dignity, made in God's image and likeness and are to be loved and respected by all for who they are. Though persons with same-sex attraction are equal in dignity with their opposite-sex attracted counterparts in society, "marriage" between persons of the same sex cannot be a dignified institution, as they can never be based on the noble foundational purposes of true marriage between men and women. This is not merely a religious truth, but finds its source in natural law and is confirmed by the near-universal history of civilization.

Mrs. McG's picture

"If you call a tail a leg,

"If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? Four. Calling a tail a leg don't make it a leg." Abraham Lincoln

"Truth is not determined by majority vote." Pope Benedict XVI

Whether or not the people of Maine vote to recognize the legal fiction of "gay marriage" - the truth cannot be eradicated, only obscured. And, it is the obscuring of reality which will have detrimental effects on the morality of the culture. This is why the fight for truth cannot end with Wednesday's vote. Those recognizing the historical, cultural, psychological, and biological reality that marriage truly exists only between one man and one woman, please do not fall into silence should you lose the vote.

It is not a matter of "hate" - it is a matter of "love" for persons with same-sex attraction, as well as those youth who may be enticed to experiment with sexual acts with others of the same sex , having been given the green flag of acceptance for such acts - damaging themselves and others in the process. "Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth." Corinthians 13: 6

thinkbeforeyouspeak's picture

Fine. Let's call a tail a

Fine. Let's call a tail a tail. But the word I want to focus on is "discrimination." In the end, those who are arguing for "yes" votes on Issue 1 are advocating discrimination. As my earlier posts have noted, they are advocating that our state government treat same-sex couples differently from opposite-sex couples. And there is no good reason to do that. The "historical" and "cultural" reality to which Mrs. McG refers is tradition. I will allow that tradition is important to many people, but it's important to ask of any tradition, "Why maintain it?" If there is a good reason, we should. But if there isn't, we should not. And the tradition of excluding gays and lesbians from the institution of marriage is a tradition that I have yet to hear anyone effectively defend. Sure, there is a lot of empty talk about how we must maintain traditions. But that's circular. It's tantamount to saying "We've always done it this way. So we need to keep doing it that way." That's not a justification folks. It's faulty logic. As for Mrs. McG's suggestion that the definition of marriage is somehow rooted in a "psychological" or "biological" reality, with all due respect, that's utter nonsense. What's being debated now is a definition of a legal category. "Marriage" is not a biological category, nor is it a psychological category. To paraphrase physicists, Mrs. McG's suggestion that marriage is either a biological or psychological category is "not even wrong." It's meaningless. In any case, I have no illusion that I can persuade her. But I hope that others who are on the fence might recognize the illogic of her position and reject it. I offer an alternative position instead: If two consenting adults who meet the other requirements to marry stipulated by Maine law (e.g., not close relatives) love each other enough to want to dedicate their lives to each other, the state will recognize their union as a marriage, with the same standing as any other marriage. That position is rooted in the principle of equality--we treat couples the same unless there is a compelling reason not to. Advocates of the "Yes on 1" campaign pose a threat to such equality. They want to take it away. If you agree with my position--and, more generally, if you want to protect equality--I urge you to vote "no" on 1.

SRV's picture

Those who toss around the

Those who toss around the 'bigot' label to anyone who has an opposing view, even to those who are fully committed to granting the full range of legal rights to same sex couples under any other name but "marriage," are largely the same group who decried being labeled as unpatriotic simply because they voiced disagreement with certain policies of the last administration. The fact is that reasonable people can disagree and test the strength of their position at the ballot box rather than resorting to branding anyone who dares to disagree as an idiot or evil. At the very least it will make for an exciting election night and Maine should receive plenty of national coverage as a result.

thinkbeforeyouspeak's picture

SRV, think about what you

SRV, think about what you are saying. You refer to those who "are fully committed to granting the full range of legal rights to same sex couples" but "under any other name but 'marriage'" You say that as if we should applaud--or even thank--such people. I am afraid I think not. Such people are advocating the re-creation of a system of "separate but equal" institutions, which is obviously analogous to the ways that racial segregation was maintained in the American South up until the middle of the 20th century. As with that abominable system, the position to which you refer is one that would deny same-sex couples access to the same institution as opposite-sex couples. In some sense, the willingness to create a functionally identical system, but one that must be named differently, is a sign of how desperate such people are to exclude gays and lesbians from the institution of marriage. They'll allow anything but that. Why? What is so wrong with gays and lesbians that would motivate such exclusion? SRV, if this position is yours, tell me that. What's so wrong with gays and lesbians who love each other and want to dedicate their lives to one another? What's so wrong with that, that motivates you, or at least those to whose position you referred, to want to tell them "no" when they want the state to treat them the same as opposite-sex couples? Don't you realize what an insult and a slap in the face that would be? And you are asking the state to slap them in the face--to do that in all our names. Well, I for one don't want the state doing that in my name, and so I will oppose you on this. And I urge all others who feel similarly--who don't want the state to insult our gay and lesbian fellow citizens in this way--to show how serious you are by voting "no" on Issue 1.

gaby's picture

I whole heatedly agree!

I whole heatedly agree!

Taxpoor's picture

New Poll Shows Maine Gay

New Poll Shows Maine Gay Marriage Repeal Pulling Ahead ( GOOD) The add on the TV that is for same sex marriage says lets not make families feel embarrassed. OK so what would the gays be embarrassed about unless they know what they are doing is wrong. That add tells me they know its wrong but are trying to convince straight people its OK . They are not aware that this TV ad is admitting its wrong to be gay. Do they think a piece of paper will make it ok. Also why do people from far away think that people in MAINE want to read anything they have to say. Say like Hawaii. What interest would they have in Lewiston Maine's SJ? Seems to me they should keep their remarks in Pahoa and not worry about things so many miles away. We don't need out of staters options about what's going on in Maine. Mind your own affairs
VOTE YES ON 1 Keep marriage the way it was meant to be 1 man & 1 woman

gaby's picture

Taxpoor, you have a very bad

Taxpoor, you have a very bad attitude! Gay people, as you put it, are not embarrased, they simiply don't want to be harrassed by ignorant people such as yourself...... Quite frankly, it's none of your damn business what other people do in there own life. Apparently you don't have one! vote NO on 1 and let people be treated as equals...

John 28's picture

a bigot's mind, like you

a bigot's mind, like you taxpoor, cannot be change, for ye shall be a bigot the rest of your days

exoggensani's picture

Amen! I believe your

Amen! I believe your right... they obviously think it's embarrassing to be homosexual if they say this in their add.

Scotty_O's picture

Boy, if the people got this

Boy, if the people got this fired up over the economy, the Chineese would be borrowing from us. I can't wait until it's over and maybe we can concentrate on the economy again and put aside circus side show issues such as this one. Oh, wait, we still have Commu-care to worry about, darn it!

tron's picture

This is merely round 1.

This is merely round 1. Whoever loses will start their own petition drive Wednesday.

queenhoneeybee's picture
verified

Power of positive

Power of positive thinking... always trumps negativity. No negative thoughts, no doubts, no anger... we just to have to be go-with-the-flow, positive, and convinced that we accomplished something so grand! This makes a truly marking day in our history... another great chance to be a witness to something so amazing. Maine does not tolerate discrimination! NO on Question 1!!! =]

jalbrecht1's picture
verified

Yes, Gil it is a slanted

Yes, Gil it is a slanted article, but then its tough these days to find a bigot when you want one.
Jon Albrecht Dixfield

Gil's picture

it's great when you guys

it's great when you guys prove my point for me. Disagree with a lib, you're the bigot.
"Reasoning with a liberal is like trying to pick up a turd by the clean end. " Pirate

thinkbeforeyouspeak's picture

Oh, stop playing the

Oh, stop playing the "victimized conservative" card, buddy. You only say that kind of thing because you have no substantive response to the criticisms you face when you say stupid things. If you can't defend your claims, then shut up.

jalbrecht1's picture
verified

Well we'll know wednesday;

Well we'll know wednesday; maybe tomorrow. Either way I expect it to go to the Maine Supreme Court where the issue always belonged. Like Iowa the MSC will find for marriage equality.
Jon Albrecht Dixfield

98civb18c's picture

Its fun you think that

Its fun you think that because I sure that MSC can only rule on laws that are unconstitional. see if the yes groups wins no law is passed. so only if the no group wins would this go to the MSC. Also seeing that maine has a civil union the decision by the MSC is up in the air.

give a Liberal a fish and he'll ask you to clean and cook it

tron's picture

Actually a law already

Actually a law already exist, mainly that only mixed genders can marry. Therefore if two same gender people were refused a marriage license they could appeal all the way the MSC, or to SCOTUS. In fact the two lawyers in the Bush V Gore case are trying to get a case together to take to the Supreme Court. But like I said earlier, tomorrow'd vote is just round one, on Wednesday the losing side will start another petition.

Gil's picture

Nice slanted article. The

Nice slanted article. The author writes flowery prose for the gay marriage supporters and the only thing he can write about the opposing side is that they are under investigation about their contributors. I don't expect fair representation in the media, but at least try and make it look unbiased in an AP article. A yes vote is not a vote of hate, or bigotry.
"Reasoning with a liberal is like trying to pick up a turd by the clean end. " Pirate

thinkbeforeyouspeak's picture

In short, I urge anyone who

In short, I urge anyone who does not think of himself or herself as a bigot, and anyone who is opposed to irrational discrimination to go out and vote "no" on Issue 1 tomorrow (unless one already has, through early or absentee voting). To fail to vote "no", while claiming to oppose discrimination, is to show that you are all talk and no action when it comes to opposing discrimination.

thinkbeforeyouspeak's picture

But a "yes" vote is an

But a "yes" vote is an endorsement of discrimination. To vote "yes" is to take a position that the state government should treat same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples differently. To treat differently is to discriminate, and there is no good reason for our government to do so. (Churches are free to do as they choose, even under this law. It's about the actions of the state.) As has been pointed out, time and again, all of the arguments offered for why same-sex couples should not be permitted to have their marriage recognized by the state are baseless. They are either grounded in selective interpretations of religious texts (and this not a theocracy, so you don't get to win the argument based only on your reading of one religious book) or false claims about harm to children (the American Psychological Association and many other professional groups have long made clear that same-sex couples are as effective at child-rearing as opposite-sex couples; there are lots of opposite-sex couples who are awful parents, and whose children would actually be better raised by many of my gay friends) or circular arguments about protecting traditional definitions of marriage (as the Iowa Supreme Court noted, this is circular, because it's tantamount to saying "We should keep marriage the way it is...because that's how it's always been"...If you find that persuasive, you're not thinking very hard). In short, sir, if you vote "yes," you are voting for discrimination against gay couples, and there is no sound reason to do so. If that's not bigotry I don't know what is. Just as it was wrong to discriminate without good reason against interracial couples who loved each other and wanted to marry (as was done in the 20th century), so is it wrong to do so now against our fellow citizens who are gay.

to be or not's picture

Just look at Rosie ODonald

Just look at Rosie ODonald ,this will give town money for marrage L and then if it comes to this divorce papers,then Lawyers.just like man&women they will be marrage&Divorce.Just dont theach our Children about being gay or les.!!!!!!!!!!!

dandee84's picture
verified

Pusha, California a dress

Pusha, California a dress rehearsal for Maine, thT is like comparing apples and oranges. Maine people are down to eearth with a strong earth ethic and respect for others especiially others privacy and right to choice their own destiny. Many native Mainers and I am trusting we are still in the voting majority are independent thinkers who resent interference by outsiders (Flatlanders) who have no business mucking around in our affairs. They dont live here and they will not live with the consequnces. I trust Maine people will do the right thing tomorrow and vote NO ON #1giving every Maine adult citizen the same rights in choosing a partner a living their lives without undue harassment and messing around with lawyers for this and that agreement, power of attorney and what have you which certainly goes against the grain of a native Mainer.

This initiative grates on the sensibilities of native Mainers just on the general principal that it gets lawyers involved in peoples lives and invades privacy needlessly.

If we could only return to common sense...

98civb18c's picture

the Yes on 1 supporters are

the Yes on 1 supporters are trying to have Maine return to common sense.

Give a Liberal a fish and he'll ask you to clean and cook it

John 28's picture

Sun Journal, Why showing so

Sun Journal,
Why showing so much hate to all og God's children in your newspaper? First of all, this same exact article appeared elsewhere, which you simply 'copied'. You can even find the truth and print a fair story!

gaby's picture

John, The SJ has a difficult

John, The SJ has a difficult time finding the truth to print a fair and true story...... I know first hand and I know other people who know first hand how the SJ seems to print stories without the full and actual truth. Mark Laflamme, seems to write most articles of the articles in the SJ(he never get all the facts, and or he puts his own false spin on things). I don't really believe anything printed in the SJ unless they are from the AP (even then, who knows) SJ I trust nothing that I read from your paper. I simply read it online for a good laugh... Can you say Tabloid?

Gil's picture

It actually states that it

It actually states that it is an AP article.
"Reasoning with a liberal is like trying to pick up a turd by the clean end. " Pirate

Advertisement