The stars seemed aligned for supporters of gay marriage. They had Maine's governor, legislative leaders and major newspapers on their side, plus a huge edge in campaign funding. So losing a landmark referendum was a devastating blow, for activists in Maine and nationwide.
In an election that had been billed for weeks as too close to call, Maine's often unpredictable voters repealed a state law Tuesday that would have allowed same-sex couples to wed. Gay marriage has now lost in all 31 states in which it has been put to a popular vote - a trend that the gay-rights movement had believed it could end in Maine.
"Today's heartbreaking defeat unfortunately shows that lies and fear can still win at the ballot box," said Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
With 87 percent of the precincts reporting, gay-marriage foes had 53 percent of the vote. They prevailed in many of Maine's far-flung small towns and lost by a less-than-expected margin in the state's biggest city, Portland.
"The institution of marriage has been preserved in Maine and across the nation," declared Frank Schubert, chief organizer for the winning side.
Attention will now turn to other states, including California - where Schubert was an instrumental strategist a year ago in the successful campaign to overturn cost-ordered same-sex marriage.
Gay-rights activists have been planning to go back to the ballot in California, either in 2010 or 2012, in another attempt to legalize gay marriage. But the Maine result was not the victory they had been hoping for to fire up their troops.
Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage, a conservative group that steered substantial funds to fight gay marriage in both California and Maine, was elated by Tuesday's result, saying it shows that "that even in a New England state, if the voters have a chance to have their say, they're going to protect and defend the commonsense definition of marriage."
At issue in the referendum was a law passed by Maine's Legislature last spring that would have allowed gays to wed. The law was put on hold after conservatives launched a petition drive to repeal it.
Five other states have legalized gay marriage - starting with Massachusetts in 2004, and followed by Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut and Iowa - but all did so through legislation or court rulings, not by popular vote. In contrast, constitutional amendments banning gay marriage have been approved in all 30 states where they have been on the ballot.
Brown said "out-of-touch legislators" are a principal reason same-sex marriage has taken hold in New England.
"What we're saying is give us a chance to take our message to the people and let the people decide," he said. He also suggested that the outcome in Maine will give pause to lawmakers in New York and New Jersey, where gay-marriage legislation is pending.
Richard Socarides, who was an adviser on gay-rights issues in the Clinton administration, said the loss in Maine should prompt gay-rights leaders to reconsider their state-by-state strategy on marriage and shift instead to lobbying for changes on the federal level that expand recognition of same-sex couples.
In Maine, gay-marriage supporters conceded early Wednesday.
"We're in this for the long haul," said Jesse Connolly, manager of the pro-gay marriage campaign. "For next week, and next month, and next year - until all Maine families are treated equally. Because in the end, this has always been about love and family and that will always be something worth fighting for.
A similar note was sounded by Democratic Gov. John Baldacci, who signed the bill into law last May and spoke out in defense of the law.
"If we don't get to the top of the mountain tonight, we've made a significant stride. And we're going to get there," he said late Tuesday. "We will get to the top of the mountain."
Both sides in Maine drew volunteers and contributions from out of state, but the money edge went to the campaign in defense of gay marriage, Protect Maine Equality. It raised $4 million, compared with $2.5 million for Stand for Marriage Maine.
Stand for Marriage based many of its campaign ads on claims - disputed by state officials - that the new law would mean "homosexual marriage" would be taught in public schools. That was the same theme used to persuade Californians to reject gay marriage.
Elsewhere on Tuesday, voters in Washington state voted on whether to uphold or overturn a recently expanded domestic partnership law that entitles same-sex couples to the same state-granted rights as heterosexual married couples. With half the precincts reporting, that race was too close to call.
In Kalamazoo, Mich., voters approved a measure that bars discrimination based on sexual orientation.






Ummm, your seriously
Ummm, your seriously offended by being called a breeder? My wife and I are breeders, I don't see anything wrong with it.
Do you consider it disgusting? That's like being offended by being called a "North American"
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Hey "thinkbeforeyouspeak" -
Hey "thinkbeforeyouspeak" - the problem with your theory about young people is that they get older - meaning wiser, more mature, and more conservative.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.tbys I had a history
tbys
I had a history professor tell me liberal at age 25 you are just young. Liberal at age 50 you are just stupid.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.It was not nearly as close
It was not nearly as close as predicted. Please note the representatives (all Auburn - Lewiston reps I believe) who voted against the people and go after them in the next election. Contact them directly and ask them their vote because some of them were very sneaky about it.
Now gay activists, you've cost the state Millions of dollars and despite the millions of dollars of out-of-state support Mainers stood for traditional marriage between a man and a woman . . . as it is meant to be.
Mainers are independent and didn't appreciate you ramming your beliefs down our throats and the ballot box proved it again as it has 31 times now.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Now that this issue has been
Now that this issue has been finalized by the voters of Maine it is time to look at another issue that has surfaced as a result. The bishop of Maine's catholic has made it his mission to test the seperation of church and state and has created a new playing surface. Since he does not respect this seperation of church and state, the tax exemption afforded the church should be the next issue addressed by the voters. It is so sad that instead of helping to feed and keep the needy warm this winter, he directed thousand of dollars to a political issue. Shame on you Bishop Malone!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.The phrase "separation of
The phrase "separation of church and state" appears NOWHERE in our founding documents. It is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptist association in Connecticut, and it clearly shows what the 1st Amendment was meant to do. The 1st Amendment begins:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
The right protected is an individual right to worship as one sees fit, apart from any interference from the government. Jefferson believed that "...religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship..." and that "Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their [Congress] acts..." Thus the government was prohibited from passing laws pertaining to the establishment of any one religion over another, and was prohibited from passing laws that interfered with The People's right to exercise (participate) in the religion of their choice.
At the time our nation was founded, the governments of Europe dictated to the people what religion they were allowed to practice. Those who did not comply were persecuted by both the government and the "Church". Many of the people (if not most) that came to North America did so in an attempt to escape this persecution and worship as they saw fit. This right was preserved in two ways; 1) Nothing in the Constitution gives government the authority to pass laws regarding religion. 2) The right is enumerated in the "Bill of Rights", i.e. the first 10 Amendments to the constitution.
The bottom line: Government is prohibited from creating a "State" religion AND from interfering with the FREE EXERCISE of religion by The People. It does NOT prevent religious people from participating in government, nor does it prevent any particular religious organization form lending support to any particular cause.
John A. Chick
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -- Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Colonel Charles Yancey (January 6, 1816)
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.To all of you who voted
To all of you who voted "yes," enjoy your moment. But the tide of history and public opinion is against you in the long run. Data on age differences in attitudes toward gay marriage indicate that there is greater acceptance among young Americans than among old (e.g., http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2009/06/future_t...). What persuasion can't do to you individually, generational replacement will do in the aggregate. In simpler terms, older generations (including mine) will die and be replaced by younger generations who support gay marriage and will look back with embarrassment upon our collective closed-mindedness and bigotry. In short, this is a sad day for all Mainers who care about justice, but it is only a chapter in a long book.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.the crying has started BOO
the crying has started BOO HOO
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I won't call you a bigot,
I won't call you a bigot, because that would be too obvious. But since you choose to mock your opponents who lost in yesterday's vote, as well as the loving couples who will continue to be treated as second-class citizens, you show yourself to be something else entirely: a classless ass.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.'public opinion is against
'public opinion is against you ' Apparently not when it was defeated here and in 30 other states. Sure the younger generation is more accepting. So was I when I was younger. Then I got a clue about the world. All those young and liberal people will not stay that way. They will discover responsibility and right and wrong.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Wait and see, old boy. Wait
Wait and see, old boy. Wait and see.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Actually, you won't see.
Actually, you won't see. You (and I) will be dead. But it's happening. Your anti-gay attitudes will become a relic of the past.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I fully understand the
I fully understand the disappointment of those supported "No" but believe that a law that would have extended full legal protection to same sex partners under any other term but "marriage" would have passed by a significant margin. Let's hope that either we or our legislators get that opportunity in the near future to fully expand rights under the same sex partner registry.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Because that whole separate
Because that whole separate but equal thing has just worked so well in the past.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Oh please. That whole
Oh please.
That whole "separate but equal" issue is a straw man. The so-called "marriage equality" law would have created a "separate but equal" definition of marriage by distiguishing between "religious" marriage and "civil" marriage.
If this law were really about equality, it would have included extending the bennefits associated with marriage to non-married heterosexual couples and single parrents, NOT JUST GAY COUPLES. Now THAT would have been TRUE equality, and acceptable to all Mainers. But that really isn't what you want, is it? You just want LGBT to bennefit from such a law.
John A. Chick
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -- Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Colonel Charles Yancey (January 6, 1816)
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.This isn't about crushing
This isn't about crushing people's dreams or discriminating against them. This is about sending a message to the legislature. The people voted this down once already. The legislature decided to ignore the wish of the people and took it upon themselves to ignore the people and pass the law anyway. This should serve as a reminder to the legislature to listen to the people. If you want to be mad at someone, be mad at the legislature. They are the ones that poked a sleeping dragon.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I love my brother. Is it
I love my brother. Is it 'discrimination' because there is a law that I can't marry him?
That word is very much overused in trying to get ones way in this country.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Hip Hip Horray YES YES YES
Hip Hip Horray YES YES YES was there ever any doubt!!! NOW WE MUST SET OUR MINDS ON GETTING RID OF BALDACCI AND ALL THE THE OTHER POLITICIANS WHO LED US HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE!! IT IS TIME THE NEWSPAPER WROTE THE ROLE CALL OF THOSE WHO SUPPORTED THIS RAG OF A BILL!!!! AND WE MUST STOP IT FROM EVER COMMING BACK!!!!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I used to think that the
I used to think that the majority of Maine residents were independent thinkers. Of course, I can blame that on thinking tainted by over 80 years here and a different time apparently before the flatlanders took over out numbering true Mainers for that is all I can allow my self to credit the heartbreaking results of this referendum to. Only two things can explain this out come. We know that the bible is a creation of man, Emperor Constantine to control men and was used during this campaign apparently effectively to control people, successfully manipulating them to vote against equality, maintaining division among the people and giving more power to the church and a few. The people of Maine have surrendered their independent thinking, their stay out of each others business convictions, and staunch commitment to equality for all to the twisted bigotry, self advancing manipulations, basically demonstrated they have enslaved themselves to the flatlanders. You may think this was just about gay rights, but when you look as who funded, who ran the campaign, who all he spokes people where, all out of staters against equal rights you realize, it was a whole lot more. In this election we have proven that our state may be financed by the residents but the important decisions, the operation is by outsiders.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.d wilson I was born and
d wilson
I was born and raised in maine my parents are from maine my grand parent from maine and so on. all born and raised in maine and I voted Yes. so before you start calling all yes voters flatlander (an insult worst than anything homosexuals are called in my opinion) maybe you should stop and think about how people voted.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Are you serious? I am a
Are you serious? I am a NATIVE Mainer, not a flatlander, and I voted "YES" proudly. Stop blaming the "out-of-staters." Maine people voted on this one, regardless of who funded it, and AGAIN said NO!!! What part of that do you not get? As for the reason people reject gay marriage, I suspect that morality is one of them, in addition to the concerted efforts to make sure that our children don't learn morality from their parents but from gay activists who wish to indoctrinate our children. As for the Bible, your ignorance is laughable. Ancient Bible manuscripts pre-date Constantine by centuries, thus your assertion is not even credible. Whatever one chooses to base their convictions on is not your business. You had your say based on your convictions, whatever motivates them, and I had my say based on my convictions, whatever motivates those. Get over it, that is what America is all about. I am neither a bigot, a homophobe, or "enslaved" to anyone. Homosexuality is against God, against nature (since homosexuals cannot reproduce), and against my sense of morality. Apparently, the majority of the voters agreed with me.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Ezekiel 7:10 "The day is
Ezekiel 7:10
"The day is here! It has come! Doom has burst forth, the rod has budded, arrogance has blossomed!"
Please give us the Book, chapter, and verse that you interpret saying marriage is for reproduction. I cannot find it no matter how hard I try and I am in fear for my marriage because I cannot have children. The natural flow of these types of things leads one to believe that the religious sector will gain confidence after numerous wins and will turn their sites on the next batch of non believers and non conformists. History shows it can take as little as 14 years for this to happen (1918 - 1932) and we are several years into that time frame now.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.To speak to your first
To speak to your first question, Stacy, I'd be happy to...It's right there in Genesis 1:27-28...God created male and female, blessed them, and told them to be "fruitful and mutliply, and replenish the earth." Now, if you had read my post carefully and honestly, not reading into it what you wanted it to say, you would understand that I was not referring to infertile couples at all. Infertile heterosexual couples are not what I had in mind. Your implication that somehow I am opposed to your marriage because you cannot have children is sensationalistic hyperbole of the highest order. I said no such thing. You and your husband are not against nature; you are biologically compatible and, if not for a medical anomaly, would reproduce in like kind. This has nothing to do with couples that cannot have children. Homosexual couples, on the other hand, can be perfectly healthy and yet they will not reproduce in like kind; they are not biologically capatible. They have to have "help" from the other sex. Even then, one of them has no biological connection to the offspring. Your reference to Ezekiel is curious...If you think it refers to those who reject same-sex marriage, you are sadly mistaken. You have taken the verse completely out of its context; go back and read it. The day Ezekiel is referring is that day of judgment and doom that God had brought against the Jews for rejecting his Law and the arrogance they showed by not heeding his warnings. So, if anything, it is an indictment on those who accept same sex marriage, since that is condemned in the Bible, and homosexual activists refuse to accept it. Incidentally, I never "interpret" the Bible for anyone...I simply tell you what it says. If you think it means something other than what it says, it is you who is interpreting, not me. Now, in conclusion, I govern my life by the Bible's moral code. You don't have to and I really don't care if you do or don't. That's between you and God and that's YOUR right. But since I am accountable to God, I will vote according to the moral code He has given me. That's MY right.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.That is what it says in my
That is what it says in my Bible, too.
But, I don't see God telling people that any other marriage is prohibited. Since apparently God didn't mind many of his favorite people having dozens of wife, or committing incest, etc., I am not sure how you can justifiy a Godly opposition to gay marriage. After all, since He didn't strike down His creations for infractions of adultery, murder, incest, etc., how can you be sure He doesn't think that two people who love each other and have pledged themselve to one another are not worthy of the same legal protection they would have if they were only different genders?
I think it requires a LOT of interpretation to come to this conclusion, not just a simple reading of what the Bible says in one particular passage.
Let's face facts: as a moral guide, The Bible falls very short. You, and most Christians, pick only the parts you like when it is handy for you. The Bible is a flawed human made document, not the word of God. God wouldn't get His facts so screwed up if He had been in charge.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Your reasoning is circular,
Your reasoning is circular, Gary...Because God did not "strike down" people who committed other infractions means that homosexuality is OK? Those "infractions" that you speak of are also condemned in the Bible, so your point is moot. That God does not strike people down is a testament to His longsuffering and patience, not an "inconsistency" as you suggest. It does not require any interpretation to see that God condemns homosexuality as an abomination, in both testaments in fact. It is simply reading the passages and their context and accepting the wording used in their commonly understood definitions. So it is not just "one particular passage" as you incorrectly assert, it is many. There is an extensive stream of theological scholarship throughout centuries that support this as well. I can justify it because the Bible says so. Only the creative interpretive methods of the last century and a half, those that have said, "Well, that's what it says, but is that really what it means," have challenged this. Picking what parts I find handy? I suppose I could accuse you of the same, could I not? You accept those things in the Bible that you like and discard what you do not believe. Fine, go ahead and do that. But I do not; no, my friend. There are a great many things in that book that I wish were not there. As for your sweeping statements that the Bible fails as a moral guide, I would say that you are not qualified to make a moral judgment of a God you don't believe in. It is also clear to me that you have never studied it and tried to understand it. As for being a flawed human document and not the word of God because its facts are so screwed up (I love that one...the ol' Bible is full of errors argument), I challenge you to give one. I can assure that I am still looking and I have read it many times. To conclude, however, if you don't want to believe the Bible, fine. If you don't want to use it as your moral guide, that's fine, too. I don't care. This referendum asked for my input...I voted "Yes."
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.** I can justify it because
** I can justify it because the Bible says so.**
You believe the Bible because the Bible says you should believe the Bible. And you accuse me of circular reasoning? You may not understand the definition of the term.
**There is an extensive stream of theological scholarship throughout centuries that support this as well.**
All of this scholarship is based on interpretations of one source. Hardly proof that any of it is valid.
**Because God did not "strike down" people who committed other infractions means that homosexuality is OK?**
The vote was about homosexual marriage. Strictly speaking, the Bible says that He finds homosexuality an abomination, NOT that homosexual marriage should not have the same legal protection in the USof A that heterosexual marriages have. Do you REALLY think you are not interpreting the Bible for us? Where does God say that you have the right to enforce His laws?
**Picking what parts I find handy? I suppose I could accuse you of the same, could I not? You accept those things in the Bible that you like and discard what you do not believe.**
Sure, you can accuse me of anything, I guess. You would be wrong. I did not say what I believe and what I discard. YOU did. I am only pointing out that you only want to believe the parts you like, in order to support what YOU think He wants. I think much of the Bible is of questionable origin, and of dubious merit.
**As for your sweeping statements that the Bible fails as a moral guide, I would say that you are not qualified to make a moral judgment of a God you don't believe in.**
You are wrong to assume that I don't believe in God. (Pardon me, your bigotry is showing...) Besides, I have every right that you have to decide what is moral and what is not. You must think it is morally correct to kill your wife on your father-in-law's doorstep if you find that she is not a virgin on your wedding night. (It is in the Bible) I do not. You must think it is OK to keep slaves, as long as you don't beat them too much. (It is in the Bible) I do not.You base your morality on ONE BOOK that has questionable morality displayed in many instances. If you require, I can give you more examples of how morality works in the Bible and in God's actions.
**It is also clear to me that you have never studied it and tried to understand it.**
Wrong again. I tried to understand it, but found too many contradictions and moral failings.
**As for being a flawed human document and not the word of God because its facts are so screwed up (I love that one...the ol' Bible is full of errors argument), I challenge you to give one.**
Oh, I can do better than just one: What day did the Last Supper occur? Before Passover? After Passover? Depends on which book you read.
Where was Jesus born? In a manger? Under a tree? Nazareth? Bethlehem?
Was Mary a virgin? Or a just a young woman?
The history of human intervention and rewriting of the Bible is not even in question. Surely you don't believe that He actually physically wrote it, do you?
Of course, I am sure you can expand on how God could have created so much on the first day, yet didn't make a Sun (the durnial expression "day" is defined by the apparent rise and setting of same) until later.
Who chronicled those first 7 days?
Who did Cain need protection from?
If you ever disobeyed or disrespected your parents (and I am confident that everyone does or has done this), you are only alive because they knew better than to kill you as the Bible directs. If you ever failed to follow Jewish dietary laws, you have committed an abomination in God's eyes. In fact, if you ever ate meat, you are in violation of God's law that we shall take grains and seeds as our meat (Genesis).
I am sure that you must realize that extremist terrorist Islamic groups truly believe that they are doing God's will when they kill infidels and themselves. That is the logical outcome when people take it upon themselves to interpret and implement God's will. Their interpretation of the Bible and the Koran are every bit as moral as yours---which is to say, not very moral at all. What many people need to consider is that maybe God expects you to live in accordance with His law, NOT to make anybody else live as YOU see fit. Chances are you think that God, the loving patient, longsuffering bully you adore, will likely forgive you for all of your sins, but you probably don't think that many others will get the same treatment. Since you have the direct line to His wishes, you get to force your beliefs on those who think, or behave differently. I disagree. If only you would stay out of everyones business, I, too, wouldn't care what you think or do.
I stand by my arguments in my first post. If you can find something to persuade me otherwise, not just repeating "the Bible says so," I will listen. I do not wish this to seem like I am attacking you personally, I just think that your beliefs are colored by a lack of introspection and objective thinking. Feel free to think that I know nothing and pray for me if you wish.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.It's over, so the No on #1
It's over, so the No on #1 folks can stop whining and let it go. 30 other states voted with the same outcome, that says something.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN!!!
THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN!!! 53% to 47% so all you weirdoes that want marry go see Nancy Pelosi in your Capital City San Francisco... oh and remember it was Adam & EVE NOT Adam & STEVE!!!!!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.go fly a kite you closed
go fly a kite you closed minded idiot!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I am ashamed and embarassed
I am ashamed and embarassed to call my self a Mainer. What a disgrace that a state whose people prides itself on fairness, equality, and most of all staying out of other people's business we have just shown that none of that is true that we are really just a bunch of homophobic bigots.
If we could only return to common sense...
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I'm not ashamed or
I'm not ashamed or embarrassed one bit. Those that voted YES on 1 are not Bigots...Bigot, a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion. No one is running gay people out of the state. We said no to gay marriage. You remind me of a spoiled child. You call the good people of Maine names, because they do not agree with you. Grow up! You people have attacked everyone and anyone including, trying to intimidate church going people, with your threats and name calling. If these very acts were done against the gay community, we would be arrested for hate crimes. Look in the mirror before judging others. The people of this state have spoken, and we will not be intimidated by your threats and name calling. It does not matter how many New England states said yes. Maine people are not followers, we said no!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.GEE you should move
GEE you should move AWAYYYYYYYY
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Then maybe you shouldn't
Then maybe you shouldn't call yourself a Mainer. Nobody should do anything they are ashamed of. Maybe if the state had stayed 'out of other people's business' then there wouldn't have been a need for this.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.You know I have heard people
You know I have heard people muttering about the "sanctity" of marriage. A lot of the people that speak about the "sanctity" of marriage have not only cheated on spouses in the past but have also been divorced several times. Is this not at least a LITTLE hypocritical?
Also, don't we live in America where we are supposed to have some sort of freedom? Why exactly is it not ok for homosexuals to get married? Does it hurt anybody if two men get married? How is it ANYBODYs business but their own?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.i would guess it was
i would guess it was EVERYONES business since EVERYONE got a say in the matter
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.It's funny that you think
It's funny that you think that way. When my wife and I got married, the only person's "Business" that was involved was the lady at the town hall who gave us the license. i didn't see half of the state turning out to say I couldn't marry her. Why is it your business to say that 2 men or 2 women cannot marry. Who the hell do you people think you are? You're bragging as if the entire state supports your decision. The vote passed by a mere few percent. Nearly half of the state supported the new law. I believe that speaks wonders of Maine's open-mindedness and tolerance. This fight will not go away, and will be a thorn in your side, as was the support of interracial marriage. We are created equal, regardless of sex, race, religion.... Now there's a fight for ya! I was raised catholic. Attended catholic school for 13 years. I have completed all of my sacraments, including being married in the catholic church. I stand here today, ASHAMED of the church for interfering with the equal rights of Maine's citizens. How dare Malone use this opportunity to push church doctrine. The church had no right being involved in this fight. The bill was not forcing gay marriage in catholic churches, and the hypocrisy of the church, to outright LIE, saying it would lose it's standing as a 501.c.3 charity. After this election, it's status should be revoked for inappropriate use of funds. And those of you claiming that gay marriage would be "Taught" in Maine's schools. As if it would be promoted or forced upon the pupils. The only thing being taught in our schools would be TOLERANCE, ACCEPTANCE, and EQUALITY! "Yes on 1" supporters speak as if these things are in and of themselves sins. As if you are afraid of it. Rest assured, you have not heard the last of this front. Prepare yourselves Maine! It's not going away this easy...
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I so agree!
I so agree!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.One learns the best lessons
One learns the best lessons from defeat.
So, its time to set up our own citizen referendum.
Besides, if we can get 2 Catholic churches to close every time this comes up to vote, all the better.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Talk about intolerant.
Talk about intolerant.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Stop being so prejudice. For
Stop being so prejudice. For people that want equal right you all seem to forget there is something called Freedom of Religion.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I have no problem with
I have no problem with people practicing religion, just like I don't have a problem with magicians putting on shows for groups of children. But when your religion spends it money on political issues instead of actually helping people or keeping it's building open, I have to laugh.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Instead of laughing, we
Instead of laughing, we should petition the government to collect taxes from church who get involved in politics---separation of church and state goes both ways. If the church wants to interfere in the political process, the church should pay taxes on its income just like any other organization. If they have to spend the time to prove that theirs is a non-profit charity to avoid paying their fair share of taxes, maybe they will be too busy to get involved in other people's business.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.It's a bad day to be a
It's a bad day to be a Mainer. Sad that so many people are bigots in what is otherwise a wonderful state.
Any problem that can't be solved with taxcuts, republicans pretend doesn't exist.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Here is an idear You could
Here is an idear You could always move awayyyyyyyyyyyy
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.i'm getting fed up being
i'm getting fed up being called a bigot too!!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.If the shoe fits!
If the shoe fits!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.yeah well I'm gettign fed up
yeah well I'm gettign fed up with being called unnatural, a sinner, and so much more so how bout we call it equal
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Main Entry:
Main Entry: un·nat·u·ral
Pronunciation: \??n-?na-ch?-r?l, -?nach-r?l\
Function: adjective
Date: 14th century
1 : not being in accordance with nature or consistent with a normal course of events
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.a f*%@ing men I am gald
a f*%@ing men I am gald somebody finally said it Thank you
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.It IS unnatural! I'd like to
It IS unnatural! I'd like to see two men or two women reproduce! NOWHERE in nature do you see this kind of thing, that would make it unnatural.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Actually, you should check
Actually, you should check these kinds of things out before you spout off in a public forum. It only shows your ignorance of life on this planet.
Several species of animals reproduce asexually, including several species of lizard. Most recently in the national news, it was a Komodo Dragon.
Homosexuality is observed in many animal species, as well.
Incest is fairly rampant in the animal kingdom.
These are, by definition, "natural occurances," and are facts, regardless of how happy you are to find out about them.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.LOL okay well incest is all
LOL okay well incest is all through nature everywhere you look. Does that make it natural for humans? LOL..
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.You shouldn't be so
You shouldn't be so judgmental.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.yea yes on 1
yea yes on 1
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.The voters have spoken.
The voters have spoken. Here is a definition for those of you who throw power words around without knowing what they mean:
dis·crim·i·nate (d-skrm-nt)
v. dis·crim·i·nat·ed, dis·crim·i·nat·ing, dis·crim·i·nates
v.intr.
1.
a. To make a clear distinction; distinguish: discriminate among the options available.
b. To make sensible decisions; judge wisely.
I don't have a problem with "judging wisely, making a sensible decision, or to distinguish between two things clearly".
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Here's something for you
Here's something for you people who will misrepresent almost anything in order to pretend your viewpoint have merit.
Ok, you don't have a problem with "judging wisely, making a sensible decision, or to distuinguish between two things clearly." But , like many, you also do not have a problem with witholding the rest of the story. Within 5 seconds of asking Google for a definintion of "Discriminate" I got the following:
•recognize or perceive the difference
•treat differently on the basis of sex or race
•distinguish; "I could not discriminate the different tastes in this complicated dish"
•marked by the ability to see or make fine distinctions; "discriminate judgments"; "discriminate people"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
•Discrimination toward or against a person of a certain group is the treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discriminate
•To make distinctions; To make decisions based on prejudice
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/discriminate
•discriminatory - prejudiced: being biased or having a belief or attitude formed beforehand; "a prejudiced judge"
•discriminatory - containing or implying a slight or showing prejudice; "discriminatory attitudes and practices"; "invidious comparisons"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
•discrimination - unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
•discriminating - showing or indicating careful judgment and discernment especially in matters of taste; "the discriminating eye of the connoisseur"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
•discrimination - the cognitive process whereby two or more stimuli are distinguished
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
•discriminatory - manifesting partiality; "a discriminatory tax"; "preferential tariff rates"; "preferential treatment"; "a preferential shop gives priority or advantage to union members in hiring or promoting"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
•discriminating - acute: having or demonstrating ability to recognize or draw fine distinctions; "an acute observer of politics and politicians"; "incisive comments"; "icy knifelike reasoning"; "as sharp and incisive as the stroke of a fang"; "penetrating insight"; "frequent penetrative observations"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
•Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 is an International Labour Organization Convention.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_(Employment_and_Occupation)_Convention,_1958
•discrimination - Neutral discernment; The act of discriminating, distinguishing, or noting/perceiving differences which exist; The state of being discriminated ...
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/discrimination
These are a few, very valid, additional interpretations of the word "Discriminate." My guess is that you also knew about this but didn't want reality to intrude upon your self-righteous blathering agbout how smart you are for voting Yes on 1. However, it actually shows you are a fascist idealogue who can't find good enough reasons to rationalize your bigoted belief system, so you need to resort to clear misrepresentation. From a standpoint of integrity, this is pathetic, and, I am afraid, pretty much rampant. Your intellectual honesty is severely lacking, along with virtually everybody I heard speak or write against this marriage equity law. Why is it so hard for many of the Vote Yes on 1 people to admit that they fear homosexuality, and that they only wish to acknowledge a few sections of their Bible?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.TAKE THAT TAXPOOR!!!!! YOU
TAKE THAT TAXPOOR!!!!! YOU BIGOT!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Oops wrong reply
Oops wrong reply
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Excellent! Great job! Maine
Excellent! Great job! Maine voters have shown that they will not be bullied by an out of control legislature, or a special rights group. Of course the libs will be crying about hatred and bigotry because they did not prevail in their assault on traditional marriage. Queeny has already started by now positing that next the haters will go after the disabled. What a load, but what a perfect example of liberalism in defeat.
"Reasoning with a liberal is like trying to pick up a turd by the clean end. " Pirate
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Sorry to burst bubbles, but
Sorry to burst bubbles, but I'm not a liberal. I'm not crying either. I'm a human being with compassion and understanding-not some political or religious agenda.
I have HOPE and know that one day soon, discrimination will not have any place in out state. Keep your heads up No on 1 supporters!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Where is as you say in out
Where is as you say in out state? Should we call you trailer trash as I have been called in here for miss spelling a word ( by the no on 1 people that say everone is equal) They also say I dont got no euduction. That may be be it dont take much schooling to know same sex marriage is very wrong
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.You are wrong for
You are wrong for discriminating against homosexuals in this instance...
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.It is not discrimination. I
It is not discrimination. I am tired of people claiming discrimination every time they don't get what they want. Discrimination is an extreme word. Ask a black person that lived through the 60s and you will understand what true discrimination is. This is about what the majority in this world deem as a core value. Marriage is 1 man and 1 woman. And though most religions have rallied to that defense, it is not a religious issue for all. It is about keeping our values and not having something else forced upon us as American citizens. The couples that seek to legalize 'marriage' need to proceed down a different path. They should be granted the same status as a man/woman marriage legally. They should be taxed the same, aloowed to have their partner on heath insurance, etc. I also believe that any heterosexual should be allowed to list a person of his/her choosing for those same issues. If that type of legal union was pursued and it allowed anyone to add their brother, sister, mom or dad to their health care as a partner or dependent then this issue would gather favor with the mainstreem populace.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I think it goes to show just
I think it goes to show just how truly ignorant some people are... discrimination is discrimination. Whats next? If there is a law EVENTUALLY PASSED for disabled people to marry w/out their benefits taken away... are they going to be discriminated against and told no? I think that this only goes to show how important it is to vote and that we have to stand up and prevail... never give up for equality.
Maine will not tolerate discrimination! EQUALITY FOR EVERYONE! =]
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.i am getting fed up with the
i am getting fed up with the name calling... i mean what if we were to call names too???
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.If we yes on 1 people call
If we yes on 1 people call names our post is removed but they can call us bigots, haters and on and on
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.You seem to be
You seem to be discriminating yourself when you call people that don't agree with you "ignorant."
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.That's how the far left
That's how the far left works. They want tolerance, but only when you agree with them. They do not understand that there are multiple views to situations. They believe they can have the only correct answer therefore everyone else is wrong and intolerant. It is their version of bi-partisan.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Well not in danger because
Well not in danger because the law that the Governor signed in to law will now be taken away.. YES on 1 won by a large margin, what does that tell you all?
Both sides in Maine drew volunteers and contributions from out of state, but the money edge went to the campaign in defense of gay marriage, Protect Maine Equality. It raised $4 million, compared with $2.5 million for Stand for Marriage Maine.
Guess you don't need a large pocketbook to win.....
Marriage = 1 man & 1 woman
Congratulations YES on 1 - great job
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond."Guess you don't need a
"Guess you don't need a large pocketbook to win..."
No, just an intolerant heart.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Yeah great freaking
Yeah great freaking job
you've proven thats it's okay to stomp on the hopes of the unpopular minority,
that it's fine to tell some children there family isn't a real family,
to make sure tragedies like what happened to Janice Langbehn last year in Florida can happen here.
To make gay's and lesbian's shell out thousands of dollars in legal fee's to try to put together just a handful of the rights a straight couple can get for free after a drunken "I do." and those legal protections we pay so dearly for half the time are ground into dust with little more then a condescending snear
I love how you claim to be standing up for the families, We have families to, we pay taxes, feed and clothe our children, love and provide for them, all with out the protections you often take for granted. But you don't have to live with the fears we do, that should the worst happen, should you survive the one you love, that because you arn't allowed to say those words "I Do" you can lose everything. Your home, your family, everything. And don't think I'm being hypothetical here. It happens everyday all over the country. Children suffer the loss of one parent only to be torn from the only other parent they have ever known, and why? because to the government they were no more then room mates. Or some one is turn out of there home because gay couples don't jointly own property like a married couple so should the wrong partner die well he was just a live in house guest. and the rights we have to pay so dearly for, they can so foten be trampled on by a dead spouses relatives should the vindictive bent strike them. The government grants family who may not have spoken to them in years out of disapproval for the life style, more rights then the one who was with them through sickness and health, for richer and poorer, through good times and bad.
But what do you care you got your win right?
So I'm glad your happy, I wish it hadn't come at the cost of my own future joy.
But hey there's still life, and where there is life there is hope.
this sin't the end of it by a long shot, and the margin was a slim one
so we'll be back, and we'll carry the day, It hurts now but thats okay, it'll make the victory all the sweeter when we do win
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.IT CRYING TIME BOO HOO
IT CRYING TIME BOO HOO
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Yes it is crying time There
Yes it is crying time
There is nothign wrong with that
It's a painfull thing to have your neighbors say to you that you don't matter, that you are less then they are.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.taxpoor, what a very
taxpoor, what a very childish response...... you know, you have become extremely annoying!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Good luck to you. I always
Good luck to you.
I always find it hypocritical that so-called Christians are against gay marriage "because the bible tells them so" but don't also follow the "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" part. They also don't seem to understand the separation of church and state, which means no church or bible should be writing our laws.
I can imagine the pain of being kicked out of a partner's hospital room, or being pulled from my children with no cause. Isn't it ironic that I'm not even Christian, yet I have more love for my fellow humans than the Christians posting here?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.:(
:(
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Gays most prominent positon
Gays most prominent positon on legalizing same-sex marriage referendum? Women not in the room and other hard line inter something or other were all sick and tired of.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.