C. Bechard: Another gay marriage vote

I guess there will be another chance to vote on gay marriage. Those favoring gay marriage keep bugging voters over and over again until they get what they want.

A law should be passed to limit the number of times the same question can be put to the voters of Maine. It would apply to any referendum issue that has been voted on more than once. It is only common sense and I believe it would be a good thing.

Five years between similar referendum questions would be a good amount of time to wait. If the question also did not pass after five years, then it can’t come up again for another 10 years. Something in that order, I think would be a good thing.

Once again, I am not talking just about the gay-marriage vote. It would apply to any referendum issue that comes up more than once.

I hope state legislators can come up with something that would address the problem.

Clem Bechard, Lewiston

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 SunJournal.com, 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 SunJournal.com 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.

Advertisement

Comments

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

For 2000 years, marriage has

For 2000 years, marriage has been defined as union between a man and a woman, a union whose purpose was to procreate. Now, we want to fix it so two guys can get married and raise a family. Nice...

AL PELLETIER's picture

hoky-smokey there pirate

We're on the same page!

David  Cote's picture

First of all...

Hats off to Betsy Smith who is in charge of Equality Maine for her efforts in coordinating volunteers around the state who secured 105,000 signatures to get this question back on the ballot. She's a winner for sure and worked her butt off to get this done. Like I told her earlier this year, it's a shame this has to go to the voters at all. It should have always been a foregone conclusion that gay marriage should have been legal all along. I will certainly vote for gay marriage, however that kind of feels like I'm granting permission and I feel that's condesending to the gay community. I know it's the right thing to do. I just want to let them know they should never have been put through such an emotional vise to achieve a right in which the burden laid before them was such they should never had to shoulder. Love will conquer hate. It always does.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

They already have the right

They already have the right to marry, same as heterosexuals.

Sheryl Carver's picture

Assuming you are heterosexual, Paul,

you have the right to marry the person you love, as long as she is not married, of legal age, etc, & wants to marry you.

Gays & Lesbians do NOT have that same right. Your argument was used by those who disliked interracial marriage - "blacks can marry someone of their race, just like whites can marry someone of their race." Too bad if you loved someone of a different race. And now it's too bad if you are unable to love someone of the opposite sex.

Jason Theriault's picture

Don't be dumb.

They don't have the right to marry a partner of the gender, which is what they want.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

They're asking for 'rights'

They're asking for 'rights' that go beyond the realm of societal norms. That is why they're running into opposition. They're asking the majority to put their stamp of approval on a subject that will benefit only a minority, but will change the meaning of an entire concept. As I said in my previous post; they have the same right to marry as heterosexuals; they just want to change the rules, and don't understand why some people aren't cool with that. I can recall when they wanted to legalize 'civil unions' in Maine. They insisted then that it would not lead to their wanting same sex marriage, but here we are.

AL PELLETIER's picture

Say it again

Is there a way we can all automatically post all our comments on this subject that we posted 3 years ago? Sure would save some time. I've already had practice at what box to check at the polls as has all other Maine voters and I don't think the outcome will be any different, but going out and getting all those signatures gives some folks something to do--I guess.

Jason Theriault's picture

Times change

Current Polls show support @ 54%. And while it may be a cold hearted way of phrasing it, this vote is a war of attrition. Most younger people are in favor of it. Most older folks are not. Old folks, however, have a tendency to die off, where as more and more young people turn 18 everyday.

It will pass, it's just a matter of time.

AL PELLETIER's picture

Jason,your right

This issue will be brought to referendum every four years until it wears us down and we simply submit. Until then I believe that same sex couples should be able to enter into a civil union with all the pomp and ceremony they want and with all the benefits accorded to a man and a women's union, but neither two men nor two women are biologically capable of producing offspring. This is why the term "marriage" should remain sacred for a man and a women.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Well stated, Al.

Well stated, Al.

Jason Theriault's picture

No

What about religions that marry homosexuals? In their religion it is just as sacred an institution. What makes one religion's rule better than another's?

This is why this can't be about religion, or it shouldn't be. Because different religions have different definitions of marriage, the state's version has to be free of religious interpretations or implications. The state need marriage so that a family can be defined. Spouses get to make choices for each other, and their kids that single people do not. They get benefits, like insurance coverage and tax breaks that single people do not.

That's what this is about. No one is seeking to make your religion accept gay marriage. This is about making it easier for homosexuals to have families. Whats wrong with that?

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

If one goes back far enough,

If one goes back far enough, one of the defining purposes of marriage was/is procreation. Again, they fall short on that one and are deviating from the norm. Civil unions would pass hands down. Take the word marriage out of what they want and they'll get it easily. Let Lesbians and homosexuals have their civil unions with all the monetary benefits they so badly want, and preserve marriage for the heterosexuals. What's wrong with that?

Jason Theriault's picture

Semantics

So you want to give them all the rights of marriage but just not call it marriage. That's just semantic bs. The second you give it a different name, you open the door to it being shredded. Laws provide protections to married couples, not union-ed couples. You have to remove every distinction between opposite sex and same sex marriages or someone will start passing laws affecting only one.
Besides, the defining purposes of marriage is not procreation. People never needed help procreating. They needed help raising the kids. Families, which marriage creates, is the purpose and the solution to needs procreation creates.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Since an opposing point of

Since an opposing point of view constitutes 'semantic bs' and you've got everything else all figured out as in 'the world according to Jason', there's no need of my wasting any more time with you. You'll just have to play in YOUR sandbox by yourself.

Jason Theriault's picture

Well, take your ball and go home then.

Well, take your ball and go home then. What I'm arguing about is if the only reason you are against this is that it is called marriage, that's just juvenile. The only reason I debate this is to find the people who same sex marriage makes them uncomfortable, get them to confront that, and maybe convince them it's not the end of the world. But if you're only reason to deny someone something so fundamental is because you don't like what it's called, then I don't want to waste my time with you either.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Fair enough, then.

Fair enough, then.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

So, it isn't about love and

So, it isn't about love and familial bliss; it's about money and benefits.

Sheryl Carver's picture

It's about both.

Try removing the money & benefits from heterosexual marriage & see how much uproar you get.

Sheryl Carver's picture

It's about both.

Try removing the money & benefits from heterosexual marriage & see how much uproar you get.

CLAIRE GAMACHE's picture

marriage

Marriage when it occurs in a church is a religious ceremony in accordance with God's law but when it occurs as a result of a State issued license performed by a State employee and can only be dissolved by a State issued decree is a civil ceremony and right. The government in a democratic society should not discriminate against any of its citizens. They have every right to petition for equality. As for historical precedence, I am of the opinion that homosexuality is mentioned in the Old Testament so it has pretty much been around as long as heterosexuality. As for the argument that heterosexual unions produce children. It seems to me that we already have more people on the planet than we have resources to support. I think the human race has more than satisfied that edict. I doubt that anything we do in Maine can hurt the institution of marriage more than the religious right values voters in South Carolina standing with and electing a thrice married swinger to be our candidate for president. I believe it is in the best interest of Maine citizens to allow everyone the opportunity to have stable family units.

Jonathan Albrecht's picture

Hardly

"Those favoring gay marriage keep bugging voters over and over again..." Don't think so. The last referendum on Marriage Equality was 3 years ago initiated by OPPONENTS of Marriage Equality to repeal adoption of Maine Equality by the Maine Legislature. I believe there was a referendum years before to adopt Marriage Equality that was defeated. I haven't found the date of that referendum.
But. Clearly the 2009 referendum and the previous referendum were not the "same question". Nor are supporters of Marriage Equality "bugging people" with repeated referendums.Wonder how often petitions were received in Congress to free the slaves between 1790 and 1860. Bet'ya that bugged the hell out of slave state legislators.
This isn't a problem except to people who oppose Marriage Equality.
And the solution is simple - grant to people Marriage Equality. Why we have to legislate a fundamental human right is beyond me.

Wilma Turcotte's picture

Vote

Its just another way of them sticking something into your face enough times that you will finally give in and they will get their vote. I am against it and will vote that way no matter how many times it comes up. That is also MY RIGHT.

 's picture

you care correct, Mr.

you care correct, Mr. Turcotte, and I will totally defend your right to be a homophobe, just don't expect me to like it.

Wilma Turcotte's picture

you care

I don't expect anything from you. As you say it is my right to feel the way I do and also not to be called a name for it as I don't call you names because of your beliefs. Might be partly your type of attitude that puts alot of people on the defensive.

 's picture

Some days it doesn't pay to

Some days it doesn't pay to get out of bed. I AGREED with you that you had your Constitutional rights and then I get slammed for it. Can't you people ever be nice?

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

The parrot thinks you calling

The parrot thinks you calling him a homophobe might've pissed him off.

 's picture

unlike others, I do NOT talk

unlike others, I do NOT talk to or about imaginary animals. I have all my mental faculties.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

You ought to try it; it might

You ought to try it; it might broaden your horizons.

ERNEST LABBE's picture

Is it impossible

s it impossible for you to coment without name calling?

CLEM BECHARD's picture

any referendum

What does any referendom mean? If the gay marriage passes I am fine with that. Also calling people names because of their opinion is stupid.I just happen to think that a marriage is between a man and a woman. Also maybe more signatures to collect would do the trick, that
is a good idea also.

Jason Theriault's picture

There is Clem.

What limits what can be on the ballot is the amount of signatures they can get. If there isn't a decent amount of public support for an issue, it will never make it onto the ballot.

Mark Wrenn's picture

The nerve!

"Those favoring gay marriage keep bugging voters over and over again until they get what they want." The nerve of some people, wanting to be treated equally.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

They have the right to marry;

They have the right to marry; same as heterosexuals do.

Douglas Mac antSaior's picture

Or maybe this country should

Or maybe this country should have some document. Some piece of paper maybe with people's rights spelled out. Yeah, that would be nice. Then, biggots and religious fanatics can rail all they want to but would still be unable to quell the rights of others like women, blacks, hispanics, Asians, Jews, Irish, and well... hey, if you have two neurons firing and half a cup of coffee you can figure it out.

Douglas Mac antSaior's picture

That was the nice version.

That was the nice version. Just looking for a reasonable argument from the other side..and still waiting. Long time no see though, Pattie...like the hair. Hope all is well with you and yours!

 's picture

Strange Ms Bechard, that you

Strange Ms Bechard, that you didn't object when TABOR kept coming up over and over and over again. I guess that just applies to causes that offend your conservative sensibilities.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

What's up? You refer to Wilma

What's up? You refer to Wilma Turcotte as Mr. and now you refer to Clem Bechard as Ms. You gone dislexic or do you just enjoy pissing people off?

 's picture

you may have a point with

you may have a point with wilma, although I still think it's a nickname for William, however as far as I know Clementine is a woman's name. I won't have this problem if people didn't cross name their children, but they have a right to do so, just not complain when people make an honest mistake. NOW, how do YOU know that I've made a mistake, are they part of your clan?

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

P.S. Any William I ever knew

P.S.
Any William I ever knew would've kicked my butt if I ever called them Wilma.

 's picture

You should notice that I

You should notice that I didn't use the familiar name with either one, YOU did. Out of respect for their views I attempt to used proper nomenclature, which you pilloried me for. I cannot win with you, you have to make every post a battle. Isn't it time for you to go back to the sandbox and learn how to be nice, or is that against the rules of your clan?

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

The tone of my posts is

The tone of my posts is usually dictated by the attitudes of my fellow posters. And you?

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

I've no idea what you're

I've no idea what you're talking about. I stopped playing "Go Fish" years ago.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Section VI; paragraphs 3 and

Section VI; paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Piratical Code of Behavior Manual prohibits me from revealing that information to non-believers.

AL PELLETIER's picture

dumb

More facts, figures, quotes and % you can't substantiate. Good night parrot.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

I told you the source. You

I told you the source. You don't expect me to go fish it out for you, do you? I found it and I know you're sharp enough to find it as well, Al. At any rate, good night to you, also.

Advertisement

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

I'm interested in ...