It's on: Same-sex marriage supporters give it another try in Maine

Steve Mistler/Sun Journal

Proponents of same-sex marriage in Maine speak at a rally in Augusta on Thursday afternoon.

AUGUSTA — Three years after suffering a devastating repeal of Maine's same-sex marriage law, gay rights advocates say they're ready to try again. 

Steve Mistler, Sun Journal

A volunteer for EqualityMaine leaves the State House on Thursday carrying a box full of petitions to be delivered to the secretary of state, who will review more than 105,000 signatures from people seeking to legalize same-sex marriage.

A coalition of marriage equality supporters announced Thursday that it had gathered more than 105,000 signatures — more than double the required number — to put the issue on the November ballot. The announcement follows an effort launched last summer in Lewiston. 

The referendum question will ask voters if they favor a law allowing marriage for same-sex couples.  

Supporters hope to reverse the 2009 decision by voters who repealed Maine's fledgling same-sex marriage law by a vote of 53 percent to 47 percent. The margin represented about 16,500 voters.

Proponents on Thursday cited recent polls showing that 54 percent of Mainers support allowing same-sex couples to marry.

"The number of signatures we gathered and the thoughtful conversations we’ve been having with voters tell us that Mainers are eager to speak on this question again,” said Betsy Smith, executive director of EqualityMaine. 

She added, "Many Mainers have changed their minds and want a chance to bring equality and fairness to our state. We are going to give them that chance."

Supporters of the initiative stood alongside cardboard boxes filled with petition signatures. Some of the speakers talked about how they had conversations with previous opponents of same-sex marriage and changed their minds. 

The title of the proposed citizen initiative is "An Act to Allow Marriage Licenses for Same-Sex Couples and Protect Religious Freedom."

The proposed wording submitted to the secretary of state in June 2011 reads: "Do you favor a law allowing marriage licenses for same-sex couples, and that protects religious freedom by ensuring that no religion or clergy be required to perform such a marriage in violation of their religious beliefs?"

The coalition working to pass the initiative includes EqualityMaine, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, the American Civil Liberties Union of Maine, the Maine Women’s Lobby and Engage Maine.

The coalition hopes to broaden its support by forming an advisory committee comprising labor, prominent clergy and Republican leaders.

The Dirigo Family PAC, the coalition’s political action committee, has also been formed.

"We can protect religious liberty and fulfill the constitutional promise of equality under the law for all people by supporting the freedom to marry," Shenna Bellows, executive director of the ACLU of Maine, said in a prepared statement. "Discrimination, against anyone, runs counter to the Constitution and to the Maine way of life."

Supporters of the initiative know they'll face some tough opposition, including new rhetoric that refers to heterosexual marriage as "natural marriage." It's also likely that advocates of marriage equality and opponents will receive a large influx of outside money to run and organize their respective campaigns. 

The National Organization for Marriage in 2009 spent more than $1 million trying to defeat the same-sex law enacted by the Legislature. Advocates for same-sex marriage spent more than $700,000 through 12 political action committees, some from outside Maine. 

Same-sex marriage advocates said Thursday that they believe they'll have to raise up to $5 million during the campaign.

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland, which helped lead the 2009 effort to repeal Maine's marriage equality law, said Thursday's announcement was another attempt to redefine marriage.

"After the bitterly divisive campaign of 2009, in which Maine people clearly and decisively voted against changing the meaning of marriage, we’re dismayed that they would bring this issue back for yet another vote," said Brian Souchet, director of the Office for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland.

Souchet added, "Marriage is an institution that cannot be arbitrarily redefined to accommodate adult desires for public affirmation or state-sponsored benefits."

The secretary of state will now validate the signatures and settle on the ballot question's wording. 

What do you think of this story?

Login to post comments

In order to make comments, you must create a subscription.

In order to comment on, you must hold a valid subscription allowing access to this website. You must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your profile. To subscribe or link your existing subscription click here.

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 from posting comments.



Roger Moulton's picture


Also wanted to touch on the way that a lot of homosexuals act or portray themselves in the public eye. Like the rainbow stickers, t-shirts, and all other things advertising your sexual preferences. I don't wear t-shirts that say I'm straight or bumper stickers or any of that stuff. These are some of the reasons people have a problem with all this and say you want to force your beliefs into our public. Also I find homosexual couples to show much more public displays of affection. I don't make out with my wife in public and I don't expect any couple(gay or straight) to do that. I am just as disgusted when a man and woman make out in public as I am when someone of the same sex does it but it seems everytime I see a homosexual couple they have to be all over each other in public just to say "I know you don't like it but I don't care". It's disgusting and shamefull and part of the reason you find so much difficulty getting this issue passed. And if you really like the same sex why is it that in most homosexual couples one of them seems to portray or act like the opposite sex. If you like men then why do you date one that acts more feminine than most females I know? And if you like woman why do you date a woman that cuts her hair short, dresses like a man and acts like a man? Subconsciously most homosexual relationships show that man and woman should be together by one acting like a man and one acting like a woman.

Roger Moulton's picture

You need to realize

What you fail to realize and need to realize is that different doesn't have to mean something bad or negative. But you are not willing to admit that you are different and that's why "civil unions" are not enough for you. So it is actually your own internal struggle with admitting that you are different that prevents you from being okay with a civil union.

Roger Moulton's picture

Okay now you're really gonna get mad

I am hesitant to say that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt kids. While I know some of you will be the best parents you could possibly be I've always thought it was better for a child to have a mother and father. Although it's probably better to have two moms or two dads than no parents at all. But keep in mind even though it's wrong kids that go to school with yours will pick on them and do you want to have these kids picked on for your own selfish reasons? no answer needed I know that you would chose your own selfish desires. My biggest argument is that you can't reproduce yourselves. How can you say it's normal if you can't even reproduce? And when is the last time you saw a homosexual couple in any other form of species, animal in this world? Ever seen two male dogs spend there life together and have sex with each other? you say you are born this way and you can't help who you fall in love with. Well some pedofiles and people with other sexual perversions claim they can't help it and they are born with those desires, should we say oh it's okay for you to marry a little child, or some weirdo to have sex with animals and marry them because that's who he loves and who he's attracted to? And no I'm not saying you are perverted or weird like those previous examples but you are telling me I should be okay with it due to the reasons that those people would say I should be okay with it. IT WAS NOT MEANT TO BE OR YOU COULD PHYSICALLY HAVE YOUR OWN CHILDREN LIKE MY WIFE AND I DID. While I'm not saying I dislike you or don't think you should do what you do, just saying you shouldn't force it into our public and make it out to be normal because it is very clearly not normal. Again I'm okay with it I do some things that probably aren't normal but I don't try to force everyone else to say it's okay and give me special rights because of it. If you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen.

Re: Okay now you're really gonna get mad

Just so that you know; there are over 1500 animals that have homosexual tendencies ( Dolphins actually are born homosexual and the "abnormal" part of their life is heterosexuality.

So please discontinue your degrading and ridiculous comments. All the homosexual community is asking for is the same rights as everyone else.

Mike Lachance's picture

Roger... just wait.. in 20

Roger... just wait.. in 20 years they will be trying to pass laws making beastiality a civil right. And of course, the next step will be lowering tne age of consent to say... oh 10 or 12.... because really, the way the public schools are headed thats gonna be the norm.

Your analogy to sex with animals and children is spot on. It doesnt mean that homosexuals are child molesters or into beastiality... but it does mean that it is a perversion and definately NOT normal. Homosexuality is NOT and never will be normal. Unfortunately, we have a slice of society who have now gotten themselves into positions of power (lobbying) and influence (the school system) who are systematically programming our children and reprogramming college students to think in such a warped fashion as to believe that homosexuality is as normal as eye color.

This grave lie is the absolute crux that the whole gay right movement depends on; systematic reprogramming of society over a period of time with the end goal that homosexuality becomes the accepted norm and heterosexuality becomes the oppressive vice.

Don't expect to get an ounce of understanding from gay advocates; for to "understand" the hetero (normal) world would be to accept their vice as a perversion of human nature.

Whether they "choose" to "be" who they are is irrelevant. They "choose" to LIVE a gay lifestyle and they choose to PUSH a perversion of human nature on society. They do not accept they have a problem; they only proclaim that us "hetero" folks have the problem by not accepting homosexuality as equal to normal heterosexuality.

I do not accept living gay lifestyles as normal. I do, however, accept ALL people as human, with or without sexual orientation issues, as equal. What that means is they should stop living a perverted and disgusting lifestyle, and focus on their own deep seeded problems. It is a choice to life a lifestyle. It may not be a choice to have mental issues. Child molesters have "issues" and they are no different than homosexuals and animal "lovers".... Thats my opinion. Many will agree and many will undoubtedly disagree.

I have gay neighbors and they are the nicest guys on my street. But I do not approve of their lifestyle. Has nothing to do with them as friends or neighbors.

Roger Moulton's picture

mostly agree

I'm not going to put homosexuals in the same category as pedophile or animal "lovers". I also will not call them perverted. They do choosed to have relations with adults and I'm not going to judge it as wrong. It's up to you what you do behind closed doors and I won't judge that. I am just asking you to look at it for what it is, it is not the "norm" and you are trying to push it on everyone and say everyone has to accept you. Your ultimate goal appears to be to make it illegal to not accept your lifestyle and that is an infringement on my civil rights. I don't want my child to be tought in school that it is normal to be homosexual, and no that doesn't mean that I want them to be told it's abnormal I'd rather sexual preferences were left out of the educational setting all together really. And I don't want my kid to have to read King and King like they read in a mass. school. In California they just put a law into effect that makes it mandatory to teach what homosexuals have contributed to our country in H.S. history classes. That is so wrong, sexual preference and orientation have never and should never be part of history class. And don't get me wrong if someone that was a homosexual pops up in history by all means tell that part of history, but don't speak of the sexual orientation unless of course the sexual preference actually was some part of a controversy or played part in the historical event. To make it mandatory is just ridiculous. And this is my problem you want me to make it part of everyday life and I have to acknowledge and accept your preferences. You know what I'm an rear side hole if ya know what I mean, I say things without thinking and certainly don't care if I offend someone as long as I'm being honest or stating my personal opinion. I give people the bird when they cut me off and tell of someone I don't know at least once a month, and you mr./mrs. homosexual do not have to approve of my behavior nor do you have to acknowledge it and make sure everyone knows it's the norm. You can tell me I'm rude and a jerk and you don't like how I act and I have no problem with that. You have that right. This country is supposed to be free and forcing everyone to agree with your beliefs is not what freedom is about. You may be free to date who you want and have the same rights and again I will vote for you if you simply change the wording but I don't want you to force it into our schools, I don't want my daughter to ask me what the transgender bathroom is at school, and I want you to have your marriages have a different title simply because they are different. (remember different doesn't have to be bad or negative and if you see it that way then you need to take a good look at what's going on and why you perceive different as a negative).

Mike Lachance's picture

(Roger, I was actually

(Roger, I was actually agreeing with you... I believe you missed the message)

Roger Moulton's picture

I got it

I got the message and I appreciate the support. I just didn't want people to think that I was as agressive with these views as you are and didn't want people to think i characterize homosexuals with pedophiles and "animal lovers". Not saying I disagree with you I just didn't want to completely offend some people that I care about.

Mike Lachance's picture

Thanks. My analogy simply

Thanks. My analogy simply illustrates that there is "right" and "wrong" and "normal" and "abnormal" sexual behavior. Social engineering to make one "wrong" somehow "right" while ignoring other "wrongs" of similar dysfunction really is the issue. You've figured it out... most folks have... too bad we choose to "not offend" by being silent. Ah well. Great posts nonetheless.

Sheryl Carver's picture

Let's really think about this, Roger

1. Think of the children
A. Scientific studies have shown that children with same-sex parents do as well as children with opposite-sex parents.
B. Kids will pick on other kids for a variety of reasons. My parents thought interracial marriage was bad because any mixed-race children would be teased. Bullying is a completely separate issue & should be addressed in all schools.
2. Reproduction
A. Homosexual does NOT mean sterile - many gays & lesbians have their own biological children.
B. There is no procreation test for marriage between heterosexuals, so what does that have to do with anything?
3. "Normal" & "perverted"
A. You appear to b defining "normal" as having the same characteristic as the majority of the population. By your reasoning, left-handed people, redheads, & color-blind people are not normal. Should we discriminate against them, too?
B. There's a huge difference between homosexuality & pedophilia. 2 consenting adults engaging in sex is totally different than an adult having sex with a child. And by the way, most pedophiles are heterosexual.
4. "Special rights"
A. Marriage is a civil right which should be available to all citizens. Religious organizations are allowed to choose who can & cannot marry according to their rules, but civil marriage is a right, not a "special right." If you don't think people of the same-sex should marry, fine, but you don't get to make the rules for the rest of us.
B. By your reasoning, did women get "special rights" when they were finally allowed to vote? Did mixed-race couples get "special rights" when they were finally allowed to legally marry in every state?

Mike Lachance's picture

Sheryl, by your

Sheryl, by your rationalization, pedophilia should b made legal becaue after all, all these "pedophile" laws were created only RECENTLY and the Romans were big on having sex with children. Therefore pedophiles are no different then those of us who prefer to have sexual relationships only with "Adults" (and th brings up the whole term "adult" i mean come on.. who MADE UP that term... its strictly a MODERN term created only in the last 200 years! According to your rationalizations, Child molestors are actually MORE NORMAL than homosexuals!

Its all crap. Your relativism and rationalisations are too thin to hold even a drop of water.

Homosexuality is NOT normal. Never will be. You can legislate it into legality if you wish, but the race for the prize will NEVER be achieved. This short sighted quest by the gay lobby will never create "normalcy" for homosexuals, only more strife and tears.

My opinion. Yours may vary.

Roger Moulton's picture

marriage is available to all citizens.

marriage as it is defined is available to all citizens. You can marry someone of the opposite sex and so can I. So if I feel I want to marry my dog (sexual side of marriage put aside) should I be able to marry my dog? I mean who are you to tell me I can't marry a dog. what a violation of my rights that I can't marry the dog that I want to marry. And redheads, left handed people and color blind are all born that way and there are enough of them that it is normal. but someone born albino or with 2 heads is not normal. Not that they are bad because of it or should be ridiculed but it is very clearly different. What you are doing is a decision a conscious decision. The fact that you aren't willing to have "civil unions" shows that it is more than just wanting the same rights as heterosexuals. You are wanting heterosexuals to say it's okay and it's normal. Well to some of us it's not okay and it's not normal but that doesn't mean we don't want you to have the same rights as us. We just don't want you to tell everyone it's okay it's normal i don't want you telling my child this is the way it should be or is just as normal as opposite sex marriages. i would like to be a grandparent someday and I would like my daughter to conceive that child within the normal routine of her marriage not from a test tube or sleeping with someone other than the person she's married to. But that makes me a bad person and a bigot? Again if it is truly just rights you are after then a civil union would fulfill your rights anything else is looking for everyone to tell you they think it's okay and some of us just don't and never will.

Roger Moulton's picture

consider this

And also consider this. I had two lesbian roommates that had one of their homosexual male friends over the house constantly. He spent weeks on our couch and basically lived with us at one point. I like that gay male and the two girls I lived with I still talk to them from time to time. I have no problem with them or what they do behind closed doors but do I think they should be able to be married and adopt children, no no I do not. Should they want a civil union I am okay with it. They should be able to have health insurance, do taxes together and not be denied anything that I am not denied. I am entitled to my opinion as you are entitled to yours but at least I have arguments for my opinion. And I only wrote this so you could save your homophobe gay bashing comments because homosexuals do not scare me nor do I want to bash them.

Sheryl Carver's picture

Once again, Roger

If you are fine with homosexuals having the same rights that you get when you marry, but you insist that you call their union something else, that is still discrimination. Separate is never equal - "you can drink water, just not from this fountain. yours is over there." As for adopting children, see my previous comment.

Roger Moulton's picture

It's not the same.

I am allowed to marry any person of the opposite sex just as you are allowed to marry any person of the opposite sex. You chose to want to marry someone of the same sex therefore you are looking for a right that I am not currently granted. So why shouldn't it be seperate? it's not equal or the same it's different. And as for adoption when you say most homosexuals have their own children, most of those came from a previous relationship with someone of the opposite sex so at some point you were attracted to the opposite sex, so therefore it was a decision to date the same sex not something you were born with. And again I am not comparing your actions to those of pedophiles just saying your reasons are the same exact reasons that they give. seperate is never equal and if you marry someone of the same sex and the majority marries someone of opposite sex it is not equal it is seperate. I will give you credit however for making some valid points and not just saying I'm a bigot and homophobe. If more people with your cause shared your intelligence you would stand a much better chance of getting it passed.

Roger Moulton's picture

Why disagree?

I always tell someone who is arguing or disagreeing with something there isn't any point to arguing or disagreeing if you can't point out why the opposing side is wrong and you can't give your alternative to there argument. You just disagree and say I'm wrong yet you have no argument against it. Again I've even given you an option to earn my vote even though I do disagree but all you wanna do is call me a bigot and tell me I should just agree with you. Tell me why or just keep your mouth shout. I hate it when people say I don't like it but don't have an alternative to make it better. LAME!

 's picture

The question I kept asking

The question I kept asking the "no" side and the one I will continue to ask is this: can you make an argument against gay marriage that does not involve religion? Marriage was established in western civilization first for property and title rights. The church involvement was only to verify this; oh, and share in the power. It was only adopted by the emerging middle class in the 17th century. Marriage today in the US is conducted by the government no matter who presides over the ceremony. Also, if you want a divorce, the government is the only body to answer to there. Therefore, ALL marriages are little more than civil unions. So I ask again: Can you make a Constitutional argument against it? I didn't think so.

Roger Moulton's picture

look above

look above you my argument there doesn't use any type of religion. and i bet you'll just say I'm a bigot and I'm making you out to be perverts but if you truly read what I wrote I'm not saying any of that, just saying your decisions are not the norm and I'm sick of you trying to make it to be the norm.

Dave S. Simpson's picture

Happily married man with

Happily married man with wonderful female wife and two beautiful children. I have many gay friends (I refer to them simply as friends). Many are wonderful parents. Many are teachers, some work in government, social service and in the faith based community. I signed the petition for gay marriage and will (again) vote in favor. Why? Why not! I really don't believe marriage is defined by the church...better defined by the two that are wed. To each it's own.

Jason Theriault's picture

The Civil Union argument is BS

The Civil Union argument is BS. If you're for civil unions as an alternative, either they are lesser than Marriages in the eyes of the law, which isn't good enough and discriminatory. Or they are equal, in which case you have denied people rights based purely on what it's called, which is just evil.

Andrea Lavertu's picture

Same-sex marriage

Ok, to all you 'straight' People out there. No one stopped you from marrying the boy or girl of your dreams. What do you care? Everyone is created equal. If someone falls in love with someone else, what difference does it make which gender they are? What right do you have to tell someone who they can or cannot love? God loves all of us equally the same.

Mike Lachance's picture

There is no doubt at all that

There is no doubt at all that you ARE right in "God loves all of us equally the same." AMEN to that. But if you are to use God as a defense you must also accept God's unbending word. Truth:
? You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)
? If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. (Leviticus 20:13)
? For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. (Romans 1:26–27)
? Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9–10)

We cannot ignore that in this passage Adultery is every bit as much of a Sin as Homosexuality and guess what? I was one heck of an adulterer in the past. As were most everyone who will read this... many of whom still ARE adulterers.

With that we must also remember that like many other sins, having committed them in and of themself does not automatically condemn us to eternal damnation:

? And such were fsome of you. But you were washed, but you were 4sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.(1 Corinthians 6:9–10)

If we are going to use God's love for us as an excuse for homosexual acts, we cannot ignore God's warning and God's promises.

Roger Moulton's picture

Call it something else!

I am not opposed to "gay" people having the same rights as the rest of us. However "Marriage" is a religious ceremony developed by a religion clearly against homosexuality. I don't have any opinion on it, whoever you want to date or what you do in your bedroom makes no difference to me. And if you wanted to legalize "civil unions" you would even get my vote but I will never vote for you to be able to be "married". Why would you even want to be married? It's a religious thing set up by a religion that doesn't particularly care for you. That's like a jewish person wanting to be baptized just so he can say he can do everything a baptist can, it's foolish. And the wording is just a technicality but that technicality is what prevents you from earning my vote. While I don't believe Christians should disown you or cast you out as we are all sinners and we should love everyone for who they are, they shouldn't allow you to get married in there church as they see homosexuality as a sin and they wouldn't allow me to intentionally sin in their church. And as far as "equality" I do want to say why is it okay for you to call me straight or heterosexual but if I say you are gay or homosexual I must be doing it in a mean discriminating way?

 's picture

If I am not mistaken,

If I am not mistaken, marriage was actually something that was set up by a government type (I think it was the Greeks, don't quote me on that) which the Christian religion adopted. Believe it or not there was civilization before the creation of Christianity, crazy I know. Regardless of that fact marriage is done by the government. You have to get a marriage certificate in order to get married, which again if I am not mistaken you don't receive at a church, rather you get them at your town hall or city hall. Also you don't need to have a priest, pastor or any other religious figure head no longer needs to perform the ceremony; a notary can oversee a marriage or any judge/justice. That alone right there shows that religion has little to no barring on marriages, unless you want it to. Separation of Church and State anyone? It protects churches from the State and leaves churches out of State affairs. The humorous thing is that religion was used against interracial marriages/relationships and used against women's right as well.

Sheryl Carver's picture

Separate is NEVER equal


Civil marriage is what we are talking about. It is a civil right & should be accessible to all. The government issues marriage licenses, not churches or mosques or synagogs. Religious marriage is something else entirely. Your religious organization might choose to conduct a religious ceremony for some couples. That's OK, but you don't get to decide some people cannot get a civil marriage because you disapprove of it.

Roger Moulton's picture

you're an idiot

I never said I disapprove I just said you should call it something else. It IS different okay a marriage is between a man and a woman. I don't even care if you wanna call it a "civil marriage". Just call it something different that's all I'm saying. But since you're all so quick to judge me and run your mouths I have one question for you.......Are you gonna be pissed at God when you go to heaven and are you going to tell him he discriminated against you by not making it possible for homosexuals to reproduce?

Sheryl Carver's picture

Calling other people names is a juvenile tactic, Roger,

& in this context, usually used when one runs out of logical reasons for their position.

If you think it should be called something else, then it follows that you disapprove of it being called marriage. Boys are different from girls, but family law refers to them both as "children." Do you somehow think your marriage will be damaged if other people get to be married???

 's picture

Hold on, so you are saying it

Hold on, so you are saying it can be a civil MARRIAGE and not just a flat out MARRIAGE? Why bother with the civil part then? No where in my remarks was I judging you, I was showing you that marriage was an institute that was adopted by the church and not the other way around. If we were running out mouths then so were you, you made your remarks/opinions known and we countered them with our own remarks/opinions. That isn't called running your mouth it is individuals having a discussion and/or debating. Just curious that since marriage wasn't created by the church, who says that they get to define marriage in which they see fit based on their religion? Words definition change all the time with the ages anyways. Depends you are assuming that I believe that there is a God, believe it or not, not everyone in the United States is religious.

Sheryl Carver's picture

I was just pointing out that there are already 2 "kinds" of

marriage, "civil" & "religious." One MUST have a marriage in the eyes of the law, "civil," to get any of the legal rights & responsibilities that come with that kind of marriage. People who get married in a religious ceremony automatically get both kinds, assuming they got a marriage license & the person conducting the ceremony is authorized by the STATE to conduct a legally binding marriage. If they didn't get a marriage license, they may be married in the eyes of their religion, but NOT in the eyes of the government. Most people don't ever think about this, but it is a fact.

So for all the people who think their religion reserves marriage for only a heterosexual couple, fine, we are not trying to force you to conduct ANY ceremony against your beliefs. People don't try to force Catholic priests to marry divorced people. Some churches still won't marry an interracial couple. But it is NOT OK to decide that a same-sex couple cannot have access to the civil right of civil marriage and then just call themselves MARRIED! Just like thousands of opposite-sex couples do who never had any kind of religious ceremony.

JOANNE MOORE's picture

A sin?

Being gay is a sin? Are you living in the Dark Ages?

Mike Lachance's picture

Joanne, are you serious? Do

Joanne, are you serious? Do you believe in "sin"? If yes than you believe in God's word, the Bible. If you do not believe in the Bible than you are "lost" (according to the Bible, not me) and that wouldnt matter tou you anyway if you consider the Bible fiction.

The only Dark Agers here are the ones who deny the Bible. It is theor right (even thier God given right) to deny the Bible.

If, on the other hand, you DO believe the Bible, the true and perfect word of God, than you wouyld know that "yes" being gay (actually choosing to live a gay lifestyle) is in fact a sin.

Dont believe the bible? Than you shouldnt care one way or another what the Bible says.

JOANNE MOORE's picture


Can't say that I do believe in sin. Or the bible either. It's just a bunch of fairy tales made to scare the masses into submission by an old angry white dude in the sky. Childish, really.

What I do believe in is live and let live. Something the gay bashers can't seem to get their heads around. They equate gayness with sin and judge homosexual/lesbian/ transgender people as if they had a right to. We all live in a modern, multicultural world. Fear and loathing of the "other" belongs to those enslaved by their own biases. It belongs to religious jihadists out to demand everyone conform to their narrow, bigoted views.

Ain't gonna happen.

Roger Moulton's picture


According to the bible being gay is a sin. If god wanted it that way he would have made it so you can reproduce. Again I have no hard feelings toward your preferences that's completely up to you. I don't need your approval on my bedroom activities with my wife and you don't need mine. Don't be so damn sensitive.

JOANNE MOORE's picture

So, Roger...

every time you had sex within your marriage it was for reproduction?

Just who is being sensitive here? Seems to me your bible pounding has clouded your ability to think straight.

Mike Lachance's picture

Joanne, I suggest you

Joanne, I suggest you actually READ the Bible before making ignorant statements. No where in the bible (OT or NT) does it claim sex is only to procreate. Read song of Solomon for starters...

If there is anything worse than ignorant rascists, its ignorant bible bashers...

Jason Theriault's picture

The bible is funny.

"For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him." (Leviticus 20:9)

"But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:10)

"They (shellfish) shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination." (Leviticus 11:11)

"...and the swine, though it divides the hoof, having cloven hooves, yet does not chew the cud, is unclean to you." (Leviticus 11:7)

"Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard." (Leviticus 19:27)

These rules are all from the same book as
"If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13)

Mike Lachance's picture

These OT passages are the Old

These OT passages are the Old Covenant. A definate problem for Jewish followers for sure.

The New Covenant deals with these issues clearly. READ THE BIBLE. OT & NT.

Once again, ignorance breeds ignorance. The arguements presented here are both old and weak, well worn out decades and centuries ago by those who have not actually read the entire bible.

OT Reference to new covenant:
"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."—Jeremiah 31:31–34

NT new covenant:
7For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second. 8For he finds fault with them when he says: "Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 9not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord. 10For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 11And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. 12For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more." 13In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.—Hebrews 8:7–13

JOANNE MOORE's picture


shrimp and clams! Oh my!!!

There goes the seafood industry!

Jason Theriault's picture



MMMMMM, ultimate sin

 's picture

Yayyy someone who makes sense

Yayyy someone who makes sense and gets it. I too support civil unions, marriage though? No. Gays don;t understand why and you have explained it much better than I could have.

 's picture


What part of no don't people understand.

Sheryl Carver's picture

What part of "we want equal rights"

& "we won't stop until we get them" do you not understand?

Jason Theriault's picture


Well, if our forfathers stopped when they were told no, they wouldn't have dumped all that tea into Boston Harbor.
And Blacks would still be slaves.
And women wouldn't be able to vote.

No, I'm pretty sure ignoring No is what makes the country great

Tim McClure's picture

Religious Rights

The last time I read the Constitution the 1st amendment states we have a right to practice our religion without government interference. And the 14th Amendment prohibits States from violating our rights. So if a Christian church which believes in the sanctity of marriage wishes to marry a gay couple, so be it.

Mike Lachance's picture

Newsflash... If ObamaCare

Newsflash... If ObamaCare goes active you can kiss your 14th amendment rights goodbye. Period.

 's picture


So when something is voted on and fails one can just keep getting it on the ballot until it finally passes only to be repealed again later.

In any case I do not support gay marriage and unfortunately people equate that to hating gays which is ridiculous. My idea of marriage isn't this and as a citizen have that right. The way people are today if you do not support Barack Obama it means you hate blacks and if you don't support gay marriage it means you hate gays and that is just wrong and more importantly untrue. I've had emails sent me with lots of expletives and hate from gays and fortunately I've not done the same in return.

Some people just don't agree with the issue and that needs to be acknowledged that it doesn't mean they hate gays.

Jason Theriault's picture

You may not hate them, but...

You may not hate them, but you obviously have no problem with them being discriminated against. You are in favor of denying them the right to marry whom ever they choose. So of course they are going to be hostile towards you.

 's picture


You're doing exactly what I said people do, call anyone who doesn;t support gay marriage a bigot.

Did you not read what I said? Can you understand I have gay friends or family and have NO judgement towards them.

Please READ what I said and understand that just because one doesn't support Obama it doesn't mean they hate blacks and the same goes for not supporting gay marriage. This country is so overly politically correct it makes me sick.

Jason Theriault's picture

One - At no time I said you

One - At no time I said you were a bigot.

Two - "Can you understand I have gay friends or family and have NO judgement towards them." You have judged them. You have judged their preference to be lesser than yours.

Three - If you can't take the heat, maybe you should re-think your stance. You have every right to oppose gay marriage. And I will fight tooth and nail to preserve that right. The flipside is that the other side has every right to ridicule you for your stance.

 's picture

You said I was discriminating

You said I was discriminating or allowing it by my stance. People like you just cannot understand that someone has their view of what marriage should be and has ZERO to do with gays or opinions towards gays. Your ilk just cannot understand that or why.

There literally is nothing I can say to you for you to understand that.

"You have every right to oppose gay marriage" .... well leave me be then to do just that.

JOANNE MOORE's picture

I'll say it...

You ARE discriminating. That makes you a bigot.

 's picture

The level of intellect in

The level of intellect in this thread just dropped dramatically when you replied.

Jason Theriault's picture

Your right on one thing.

Your right in that there is nothing you can say to convince me that not allow homosexuals to marry is not a judgement against homosexuality. Because there is also nothing you can say that will convince me that 2+2=1

 's picture

I don't understand why civil

I don't understand why civil unions aren't good enough, virtually all people on the planet are ok with that.

As mentioned so eloquently above about why gays would want to marry in a church that has forever wanted gays cast into hell just makes me shake my head.

I've no stigma that gays cannot raise children, be good people and be perfect citizens because they can. I think the best thing gays could do for themselves with this issue is to drop the shock and awe at gay pride parades. Straight people don;t want to see freaks in lime green garter belts with foam rubber penises dancing around like mental ward patients in the streets. It scares people who do not understand and is TOO in your face. Trust me a gay couple holding hands in a parade say a lot more than those people do.

Maine isn't New York or Los Angeles or any other huge populace. It takes time and the gay marriage movement comes across as a parent forcing their kid to eat their peas. They are rebelling against it because you are too forward with always telling people they aren't right because they are simple, stupid or bigots.

I'm not a bigot and I am know I am not.

Jason Theriault's picture

Are Civil Unions good enough?

" Straight people don't want to see freaks in lime green garter belts with foam rubber penises dancing around like mental ward patients in the streets."

Nobody wants to see that, but that's immaterial to the argument.

I said it in this thread - If Civil unions are the equal to Marriages in everything but name, thats is infantile that you would deny someone so important pure because of symantics. And if they are not equal, then Civil Unions are not good enough.

 's picture

I disagree, it isn't

I disagree, it isn't immaterial to the argument. It forms opinions to straight people in a rural state that gays are freaks and not equals. Straight people do not trust that gays can raise children properly after seeing gay men in gay pride parades wearing outlandish costumes and looking like freaks. I just wanted to explain other people's thinking, if you choose to ignore it .... oh well. Many straights consider being gay a perversion and costuming like that doesn't help anybody.

Gay marriage passes .... then it is repealed. Why was that? Because everyone supports gay marriage, understands and wants it? Obviously not, if you do not wish to listen as to why straight people fear it or are against it then don't listen. You are forcing it on people instead of taking baby steps and are wanting the full package against the majority.

It'll fail again and if not will be repealed again and again and again.

Jason Theriault's picture

2+2 =1

First you said:
"Did you not read what I said? Can you understand I have gay friends or family and have NO judgement towards them."

But then you say :
"It forms opinions to straight people in a rural state that gays are freaks and not equals. Straight people do not trust that gays can raise children properly after seeing gay men in gay pride parades wearing outlandish costumes and looking like freaks"

Which is it?

 's picture

Didn't state it was MY

Didn't state it was MY opinion, you seem to read what you to when you read. The general perception among those who either fear gays or do not support gay marriage feel that way. It isn't my opinion or many others but it exists and matters with the gay marriage issue, the main point was gays should tone down gay pride parades and act NORMAL since they are craving NORMALCY and equality.

The other "mistake" in my opinion is forcing the issue when people clearly are not ready yet in Maine, as stated above you should take baby steps to get what you want.

I don't support gay marriage because I feel it is between a man and woman because men and women procreate to make new life. Anything else to me seems like "special rights". It's just how I feel inside about it.

Jason Theriault's picture

No, I'm calling BS

If it's someone elses opinion, why did you bring it up? If it's a opinion you don't agree with, then why use it? If I think someone is wrong, I don't quote them to support my point.

As for forcing the issue, it's not being forced. It's a vote. It's the exact opposite of forcing, as everyone gets a voice in the matter.

Lastly, your wrong marriage is about procreating. It's about creating a family. As someone with 2 kids, the procreating part doesn't last that long, and what's important is making a family. Marriage does that. And as you said, your not against homosexuals adopting kids, so don't you think it's in everyone's best interests to have stable families?

Mike Lachance's picture

The state legislature passing

The state legislature passing a law that Mainers voted down previously IS forcing it down our throats. Mainers then had to VOTE IT DOWN to REPEAL the law and now the damned thing is being brought BACK again for a VOTE *again*!

If thats not forcing an issue down our throats then what is?

Mike Lachance's picture

Funny, I wasnt a SJ

Funny, I wasnt a SJ contributor back then. And how long ago was that? Additionally, the Legislature didnt just up and pass a TABOR law on their own after the people said no... No comparison.

Mike Lachance's picture

(oh, and BTW... no outrage

(oh, and BTW... no outrage here, regardless)

 's picture

Well in fairness it is a part

Well in fairness it is a part of the process, enough signatures were gathered to have it on for a vote again. Hopefully if it doesn't pass it will not be allowed to keep coming back over and over again. That goes for all things petitioned for a vote.

Maybe it is time to petition for a petition limit lol.

 's picture

Whatever, a refusal to listen

Whatever, a refusal to listen is a refusal to learn. Have a good one.

Jason Theriault's picture

I'm listening

I'm listening, but all I'm hearing is BS.

 's picture

I think I need a new set of

I think I need a new set of cans with string in the middle because I am hearing the same thing.

You're just like those Liberal meatwads who state things like "If you don't support Barack Obama it's because you're a racist".

 's picture

Trust me I'm NOT a racist. I

Trust me I'm NOT a racist. I pretty angry still about the Lewiston residents treatment and bigotry towards the Somalis, but that is a whole nuther discussion.

Jason Theriault's picture

Go time.

"After the bitterly divisive campaign of 2009, in which Maine people clearly and decisively voted against changing the meaning of marriage..."

53% to 47% is "clearly and decisively"?

It will interesting to see LePage's reaction. He'll probably outlaw rainbows.

 's picture

Same Sex Marriage

Good luck and I hope it passes this time...You can't help who you fall in love with...

 's picture

Have to do more than hope.

The homophobic right will have millions to work with this year and we can be certain not a word of truth in any of their arguments. But the tide has turned on this issue. Enough states have had same-sex marriage implemented without the sky falling and God coming down and laying waste to the country that people in their hearts know the anti-marriage forces are frauds.
You still must work to win. Every supporter needs to talk to all their friends. Identify supporters; work on the opponents; put you views on facebook stc; attend the rallies; and don't believe the polls. Then get everyone out to vote.

Mike Lachance's picture

Jonathan, is God homophobic?

Jonathan, is God homophobic? Because he clearly said living a gay lifestyle is an abomanation. He despises homosexuality. He loves all of us, but we choose the LIFESTYLE we live. Sin is sin. He will forgive all sin if you believe on Him and repent. Does that mean you must be absent any inkling of deep-seeded gayness? No.

If you dont believe in Jesus Christ as your saviour, the one true God, than keep on spouting your anti-Christian rhetoric as a Christophobic bigot. Are you prepared to live with that label?

The Christophobic left are perhaps the most foolish group in the world.

 's picture

I will support same sex marriage.

I really hope it passes this time.


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

I'm interested in ...