Whole country watching Maine's vote on gay marriage issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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