Politics is about winning, not losing. The people have spoken loud and clear with their veto of same-sex marriage in Maine.
As an individual, they are correct — I have no right to decide how a person lives their life. But as a democratic country, people have the right to vote, and that is one of the greatest rights American citizens have.
Dennis Willette, Wales
verified
Reagan, perfect words!!! Tron, you are a troll.......................but you have heard this before, and I believe you get your thrills out of getting people worked up..............you are not all so politically savvy as you are vengeful........get over it.
Nice commentaries RR and Gil. Refreshing to hear....
I think the real issue for many (including myself) is that we took a personal, private issue and made it into a public and political one.
Agreed we took an over political stance, the legislature acted though without voter approval, and that is where it spiraled out of control utterly and completely. Had we been allowed to act and vote earlier or cast our own opinions it would have still remained private. Had it been run on a vote then the private life would not have been revealed. The publicity mongers and whores such as a Christian Civic League, the Stand for Marriage special interests groups, and the rest "spoke" for the voters of Maine. Which they kiss my rear end on because it seems as though the league did little to support as the heinous acts of violence increased in Darfur as the No on two side neglected that knowledge as well. A good looking model for a Catholic church and Baptist churches worldwide which is why the churches on both sides I am very critical of.
Joseph Ziehm
Lewiston, ME
"Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a master in heaven. Continue in prayer, and watch in the same with thanksgiving;" Colossians 4: 1-2
I was walking down the street and someone asked me if I would vote no on question one. Figuring it was none of their damn business continued walking down the street. Asking me if I would support their partner, right to marry, equality, and their civil rights I declined to answer. In passing by them without answering they swore at me called me a bigot, homophobe, and a few choice words which really should have no impact. Really, though that is not the typical face of No on two and that sets a rather sad precedent and I realize that now people judge superficially. When they judged me they had no inclination that I have high functioning autism and when they judged themselves they realized how carelessly that agreement can weigh on their own psyche. I am no racist, bigot, and or homophobe just do not agree that man should tear asunder what God had in place in the Old Testament and the New Testament I am not angry with those who voiced their opinions it comes down to the fact that Yes on one won out and there should be nothing more stated it went to the voters and got defeated.
On a lighter subject God I love them Pinstripes, God I love them Pinstripes, and God I love them pinstripes.... GO YANKEES!
Joseph Ziehm
Lewiston, ME
"Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a master in heaven. Continue in prayer, and watch in the same with thanksgiving;" Colossians 4: 1-2
Based on your comment Tron, my refusal to help that guy that was panhandling in Auburn because I don't agree with the way he lives his life I must be a bigot. Get over it. There isn't anything more pure than someone's individual vote. We voted our hearts, our conscience, our desire.
Keep crying your only hurting your cause
I agree with you. This IS a huge turn OFF. It's turning NO on 1 people to the YES on 1 side.
It might have been better if the homosexuals would agree to possibly changing the name from Marriage to Civil Union.
Marriage is 1 Man & 1 Woman and the people of the state of Maine have voted this way.
It's time to move on from this subject for now and concentrate on more important things, like the children going to school hungry because their parents can not afford to feed them no more. How about health care? How about the unemployment?
Good letters. I was a co-chairman for the campaign and could not believe the signs were stolen and my sign on my car was almost ripped off because certain people didn't agree.
People I know were confronted and had to protect themselves. We are not bigots, it was our right to vote YES or NO and the outcome was like it is. The legislature had no right to vote on this without the approval of the people, I intend to get the names of all the legislature and see how they voted. People, they work for us and it seems that we have no say; just like the new tax bill that will start in January, the petitions were signed and in June, we can repeal that law. May God bless us all.
When you treat others differently than you treat people like you, that is the very definition of BIGOT. Why are you so offended by people using the word?
Let us hope this does not come up again; the question has been answered by the voters often enough. Hopefully someone will take it upon themselves to publicise who voted for this in the Legislature and the voters can make the final decision by voting the scoundrels out of office.
Skippy... have you watched the news lately? I truly hate to say this BUT, this is not going away any time soon. The No on 1 people think their cause is the most important. Nothing matters to them but this ONE subject and I think this by their actions.
Sorta like the right wing wackos who keep pushing TABOR and its spawns on us over and over, eh?
Tron, you know nothing of the democratic process. I think you would be much more comfortable in a country where there is no dissent and the only choice on the ballot is the one put forth by the establishment. So what if Tabor is put back on the ballot in an another election year? If the people who favor Tabor have gone through the process of gathering the signatures to support a referendum, why do you care? That's how representative government and democracy works. It doesn't take away your ability to have your say and vote against it, does it? The same goes for those who favor 'no' on question 1. Take your case to the people, gather the signatures to support a referendum, and let the people vote. But you don't want to do that, do you? No, you want the legislature to enact laws by fiat, without the consent of the governed. That takes away everyone's ability to have a say, even yours. Good grief, man, have you ever read the Declaration of Independence? You want the only view passed by the legislature to be yours. You want the only position on the ballot to be yours...Just check the box that supports your view. And you call conservatives and Republicans fascists? That view, my dear Tron, is the very definition of tyranny and I am confident that you would be the first one squawking about tyranny if the legislature voted in Tabor the way they voted in gay marriage.
Sorry, RR, but I understand the democratic process, the Declaration of Independence, and, more importantly the Constitution of the United States and of Maine. We live in a representative democracy. We elect people to represent our interest and also to intelligently decided serious issues that confront us. The founders of Maine wisely decided to include a referendum and people's veto process to insure that despite our best efforts of electing good people, there would always be a safety valve. The problem is entities like the Maine Heritage Policy Council have hijacked the process to serve its narrow agenda. The process works well when you have people so dedicated to an issue that they're willing to spend hours collecting signatures to get issues on the ballot. Now entities like Maine Heritage have a slush fund which PAY people to collect signatures, removing personal conviction with profit motif. Is it legal? Yes. Is it effective ? Absolutely. But it does remove the human element of a significant support for an issue. The Maine Policy Heritage Council has encouraged and supported and put at least ten issues in front of voters in the last few years. It has corrupted the process. I wish it would revert back to its intended reason, but I don't know how to do that, without ruining the whole thing in the process, which is something I cannot favor.
What does the MHPC have to do with anything? They did not corral the voters into the voting booth to vote "yes" on 1. Nor did they coerce those who signed the petition to support the referendum. You don't think the 'no' on 1 crowd is financially supported? Give me a break, tron. How have they hijacked the process? That is the process. You don't think the 'no' on 1 crowd has the financial resources to pay people to collect signatures for a referendum. They outspent the 'yes' on one crowd by 3:1 on this issue. As for representative government and elected legislators, we agree and probably always have. However, the gay marriage law had been repealed by referendum twice prior to the legislature passing it this past year. I think that violates the spirit of "trying to represent our interests and also to intelligently decide serious issues that confront us," don't you? After all, we are not talking about a clean water bill here. The MHPC has the right to organize political opposition. They don't put anything before the voters. The voters who sign the petition do. There is nothing corrupt about that. Nobody is forcing anyone to sign the petition. I walk past signature gatherers all the time if I don't support their cause. You give MHPC too much credit and I suspect you are just looking for someone to blame. Do you think people in Maine are incapable of thinking for themselves? When the voter goes into the voting booth he stands alone...The majority of Mainers, for now anyway, don't want gay marriage. The legislature needs to listen.
First let's get a few things straight. This thread started with iangol stating that marriage equality proponents were going to bring this forth, again. I remarked that it would be like the MHPC's TABOR demon and its spawns.
Second this past week was the FIRST time marriage equality has EVER been on the Maine ballot. Not the THIRD but the FIRST!
Thirdly, people who are paid to collect signatures have been proven to be more aggressive in collecting that people who just favor the issue. They're getting paid by the signature, and we all know how piece work makes people work harder. They don't care about the issue, they want the signature and will badger, harass and lie to get them. This was proven during the marriage equality . MHPC has hijacked the system. They've sponsored multiple referendums of late, merely by paying people to collect signatures. They've wasted millions of taxpayer dollars on these referendums. They're insisting they're trying to save tax dollars, yet the amount of money necessary to verified, certify petitions and to print and count votes is staggering.
Last time I checked, they gained the consent of the govern at the ballot box. Which means you are the one who knows nothing about the democratic process. Just saying.
I don't usually have time to argue with people that do not have the intellectual capability to understand what I am saying but I'll make an exception in your case. If YOU can't understand what I was alluding to, it doesn't mean I don't know something. It means you cannot reason or follow an argument properly. This is a thread of responses to a letter about Question 1. Just to refresh your memory, gay marriage was passed in the legislature, not at the ballot box, hence my comment to passing laws without consent of the governed, since Mainers have voted down gay marriage at least 3 times now. Do you follow me so far? Good. Tabor, on the other hand, was voted down at the ballot box so, yes, with the consent of the governed. However, if the supporters of Tabor want to gather the signatures to put another Tabor referendum on the ballot, they can. But tron doesn't like that. That is the democratic process that I told tron he knows nothing about. Do you get that now? Don't jump into the middle of something you don't understand and then call people misinformed. If you were looking for a "gotcha" moment to make you look smart, you missed. Go back to your comic books and leave the thinking to those who are capable of doing it.
Or are you the one not taking the time to understand? Our legislators gained consent of the governed when we ELECTED them to make laws. I wasn't arguing about the referendum process or it's results.
And P.S., personal attacks really make your argument look strong. Way to take the high road on that one. Isn't another tenet of democracy respecting someone else's position even if you disagree?
Our legislators gained the consent to represent US when we elected them. When the citizens of the state reject gay marriage twice, it is the responsibility of the elected official to respect their constituency, isn't it? Electing them does not give them a pass on voting against the will of their constituents. Please excuse my personal attack, I pride myself on being mature and reasoned in a debate, even with those I disagree with. We learn from each other that way and that is the way it was intended to be. A momentary lapse in discretion...my humblest apologies if I offended you...sincerely.
Maine voted three times on anti-discrimination legislation (based on sexual orientation), but this was the first vote on gay marriage. And again, we need to remember Majority Rule and Minority Rights. I fall back on the Lincoln example...
Excuse me, tron, for not being specific...Mainers have voted several times against particular gay rights legislation. But you are correct in this was the first specific gay marriage referendum. Is that better?
Then start with telling the truth. This past Tuesday was the FIRST time Mainers have voted on marriage equality. Your lie has been repeated so many times by so many people you actually believe it. But the truth is the truth. If you repeat the lie, you'll lose any credibility you may have.
Rinoblast, here in the State of Maine, we do have the right to petition our government regardless of who gained consent at the ballot box.
To both of you: yes, I understand our petition process and support it. HOWEVER, we elect representatives to make laws. Question 1 dealt with a law they made. So to claim they did not have the consent of the governed is a little ludicrous, because when we wrote our constitution we agreed on a Representative Democracy, not a Direct Democracy. Perhaps they did not represent their constituents' wishes, but again anyone who understands democracy will tell you that one of the main tenants is Majority Rule with a RESPECT of Minority Rights. I believe that this law was a great example of that concept.
To use another example: Did Abraham Lincoln have consent of the governed to free the slaves? He may not have had 50.1% of the population on his side, but he was a democratically elected president making a decision to preserve the rights of a minority.
Technically, if one wished to, one could make a very strong case that Lincoln did not have the authority to free the slaves. The Chief Executive's primary function is to "execute" the laws that are sent to his desk from Congress. The President may then sign them into law or veto them (in which case Congress may over-ride the veto with a 2 thirds majority vote.)
Linclon's "Emancipation Proclamation" was really nothing much more than a proclamation. The slaves weren't actually freed until the end of the war.
It has only been in the latter half of the previous century where so called "Executive Orders" have been used to enact "policies" that resemble "law." And both parties are guilty of it.
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)
And that, RR, is what differentiates you and I from the libs on these posts. I was against the gay rights bill because it was a special rights bill based solely on a persons sexual preferences. A bill that twice was voted down by the people of this state. When the legislature took it upon themselves to pass it against the voice of the people I voted for repealing it and the repeal effort lost. I accepted it and moved on. Now the homosexual marriage law has been repealed by the vote of the people and those opposed to the repeal have nothing but hate and vile for those who spoke their mind. We are called bigots and worse in an ironic twist by those who are the most close minded on the subject.
"Reasoning with a liberal is like trying to pick up a turd by the clean end. " Pirate
I have to agree with you, Dennis. I have a moral and religious conviction against homosexual marriage. I know virtually all homosexuals disagree with me and that's fine. But I have a right to express my opinion and question 1 asked for my opinion; thus, I voted my conscience. Those who voted 'no' voted their conscience. My side, this time, prevailed. Next time, it may not. But if I am asked again, I will oppose it again. But in the event that my side loses next time, I will accept the will of my neighbors. I will not agree but I agree with the democratic process.
You have expressed the thoughts of so many. Thanks for putting it into words so aptly.
Report a correction
In order to make comments, you must verify your account.
In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your profile. A member of our staff will call you to verify this information. To join in, fill out your user profile completely and check the box "please verify my status." We'll get back to you within one business day to verify your account.
Login or create an account here.
Our policy prohibits comments that are:
- Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
- Excessively foul and/or vulgar
- Inappropriately sexual
- Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
- Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
- Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned.