Matter of nondiscrimination

Nov. 3 was a sad day in the history of Maine. In May 2009, the Legislature and the governor rightfully upheld the constitutional rights of all people to legally marry; churches could still decide if they would conduct those marriages. They correctly separated church from state and belief from law. On Nov. 3, a majority of the people of Maine retracted that law.

Laws in this country are in place specifically to protect minorities from the majority. Would African-Americans have the right to vote if there were a popular vote at that time in the nation's history? Would women? And separate, but equal? Does that ring any bells, regarding the civil rights issues of the 1960s? I suspect most people would never trade their marriage for a civil union.

That law was a matter of constitutionality and nondiscrimination. It had nothing to do with education or religious beliefs. As long as marriage is a legal state it must be available to any adult, regardless of gender, religion, etc. An alternative would be to remove marriage as a legal status altogether. All couples would be joined under civil unions and individual churches would decide whether or not to sanctify those unions.

In the meantime, shame on those who let their religious beliefs, prejudices or the lies from outsiders influence their vote. Years from now, they will be appalled by their ignorance of the foundations of equality for all that this great country was built on.

Sarah Sloane, Farmington

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

I'm interested in ...

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.

Advertisement

Displaying comments, from newest to oldest

Centarie2000's picture
verified

Since homosexual civil

Since homosexual civil unions are legal in Maine, why not expand on those rights? Civil unions exist so that people can have legally authorized unions without church interference. It gives people that religious institutions would not marry the rights that religiously married couples have. That is the seperation of church and state. If the civil union rights aren't the same, then those should be changed to reflect the changes in society.

Also: Since the No on 1 people have already promised to put us all through this again, stop the name calling, moral judgements, strong words, and hopes for older people to die. That kind of thing tends to stick with voters.

queenhoneeybee's picture
verified

The 'church' is already

The 'church' is already protected in the U.S. Constitution and Maine State Constitution. LD1020 was written with an 'extra' protection for the churches/notary of public/lawyer/etc. who did not want to perform the ceremony for same-sex couples. Civil Unions exist because people are misinformed/uneducated about the laws and facts/fear and some or most rather, because of discrimination and hate. It would be nice to think that civil unions would be the same as marriage, but alas they are not. That's the big stink here.

Pirate's picture
verified

Great post..especially the

Great post..especially the part about we're all going to be put through it again. I sincerely hope it will only serve to strengthen our resolve. We have the strength of millions for our hearts are pure; our cause is just.

queenhoneeybee's picture
verified

Very well-put letter Sarah.

Very well-put letter Sarah.

jchick's picture
verified

Sarah, the State did not

Sarah, the State did not invent marriage, nor did any human government. The 1st Amendment is meant to protect religion and religious people FROM government interference, NOT prevent relious people from being involved with government. The State recognizes that traditional marriage and the family unit is the foundation of all society. That is one of the reasons that government affords certain bennefits and privileges to married couples. (The other reason being to create a revenue stream in the form of marriage licenses, etc.)

This is why marriage was codified in Maine Law. (See below)

--snip--
Maine Revised Statutes

Title 19-A, Chapter 23: MARRIAGE

§650. Findings and purposes

1. Findings. The people of the State of Maine find that:

A. The union of one man and one woman joined in traditional monogamous marriage is of inestimable value to society; the State has a compelling interest to nurture and promote the unique institution of traditional monogamous marriage in the support of harmonious families and the physical and mental health of children; and that the State has the compelling interest in promoting the moral values inherent in traditional monogamous marriage. [1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW).]

[ 1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW) .]

2. Purposes. The purposes of this chapter are:

A. To encourage the traditional monogamous family unit as the basic building block of our society, the foundation of harmonious and enriching family life; [1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW).]

B. To nurture, sustain and protect the traditional monogamous family unit in Maine society, its moral imperatives, its economic function and its unique contribution to the rearing of healthy children; and [1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW).]

C. To support and strengthen traditional monogamous Maine families against improper interference from out-of-state influences or edicts. [1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW).]

[ 1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW) .]
--snip--

To reiterate; Marriage is not a government invention, State or Federal. As such, the government does not have the authority to redifine marriage, nor should it do so, but that is precisely what this law attempted to do. If it had not been repealed, not only would the definition of the word "marriage" have been redifined, but many other words relate to marriage would have been as well. (See below)

---snip---

§650-A. Codification of marriage

(EFFECT OF SECTION IS SUSPENDED PENDING REFERENDUM ON 11/3/09)

Marriage is the legally recognized union of 2 people. Gender-specific terms relating to the marital relationship or familial relationships, including, but not limited to, "spouse," "family," "marriage," "immediate family," "dependent," "next of kin," "bride," "groom," "husband," "wife," "widow" and "widower," must be construed to be gender-neutral for all purposes throughout the law, whether in the context of statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law or any other source of civil law. [2009, c. 82, §2 (NEW).]

SECTION HISTORY
2009, c. 82, §2 (NEW).
---snip---

THAT is what the majority voted to repeal. No one is against extending any of the bennefits, privileges or "taxes" associated with married couples, to same sex couples. (And for that matter, heterosexual couples who are not married and single parent households). The State would be acting perfectly within it's authority to do so.

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)

gdls1's picture

...and you deny being a

...and you deny being a bigot?

lead dog's picture

I agree that November third

I agree that November third was a sad day for Maine but not because of the gay marriage vote. That issue was the only thing that saved the day from being a total disaster. It was a sad day because of the TABOR vote.

Pirate's picture
verified

The politicians can only

The politicians can only interpret the defeat of the Tabor vote as an endorsement of their outrageous spending behavior. It the same sex marriage had not been defeated, me and the parrot would be going back out to sea for an indefinite period. But,...I guess we'll remain landlubbers for a while longer.

John 28's picture

Sarah, Every word of your

Sarah,
Every word of your well crafted letter was so 100% correct, and yet, you will have all those pundits and bigot who have no love for no one, but themselves, attach you with their continued lies. We did get 47.4% of the vote and WE WILL WIN the next time around and yes, let us remove the word Marriage and make it all Civit Union and have them loose over 1000 rights that they now enjoy and keep telling us we want 'special rights'. They are so wrong. All they need to do is look into their hearts and find love, then they would have a good life. Thank you for writing. John Case of Livermore Falls, Maine!

Pirate's picture
verified

Just for once, will one of

Just for once, will one of you try to present your case without using the words, love, hate, homophobe, bigot, lies, and family? You can't, because your only argument is based on EMOTION and little else. It is not a civil rights issue. Show me where in the constitution that it makes two men getting married a constitutional right.

Joseph's picture
verified

Well for starters, how about

Well for starters, how about the 9th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Perhaps it's a stretch but as a gay man in a long term relationship who's been denied equal access to state and federal benefits garnered through the legal union of marriage, I don't see why this is a question that needs to be justified. Equal access to all that the law provides should be the issue here. And it certainly is an emotional issue here, especially when somebody declares that I don't deserve civil equality.

tron's picture

Sorry pirate, but since you

Sorry pirate, but since you are a homophobic bigot that lies, you elicit hate. Become tolerant and you'll see an improvement in your converstations with humans.

Pirate's picture
verified

LOL...I can always rely on

LOL...I can always rely on tron to come through with the absurd. I have higher level conversations with the parrot than anything I can ever engage in with a liberal or a homosexual. The parrot listens; liberals and nonheterosexuals can't listen because they are too wrappe up in spouting their venom of intolerance towards the dissenting opinions of others. The only way to get along with them is to constantly agree with them. Pretty frustrating. We don't hate you people; we don't even dislike you. We simply cannot understand your inability to understand the realities of the world we live in. Enough nice...AARRGHH!!

John 28's picture

poor little pirate, you

poor little pirate, you can't take the truth so go cry in your corner

Pirate's picture
verified

What truth would that be,

What truth would that be, john?

Pirate's picture
verified

WALK THE PLANK

WALK THE PLANK

cranky yankee's picture

"but there are also studies

"but there are also studies that say homosexuals suffer from a mental disorder"

The American Psychiatric Association says otherwise. Further the studies you refer to were funded and conducted by conservatives who sought to "prove" that being gay was a mental disorder or a lifestyle. These are studies that started with a conclusion and then created the "science" to prove that conclusion.

Northwood, if you are so knowledgable about these studies, cite your sources and proof. List the studies and the people and institutions that funded and conducted them.

the_poorman's picture

Agreed it was a sad day, one

Agreed it was a sad day, one in which I was sad to say I was from Maine. Eventually gay marriage will be the norm, it will just take time for the older, more prejudiced, population to die off.

Any problem that can't be solved with taxcuts, republicans pretend doesn't exist.

Pirate's picture
verified

LMAOA....oops, the parrot

LMAOA....oops, the parrot just spit up from laughing.

exoggensani's picture

Well I hate to say this BUT,

Well I hate to say this BUT, there are A LOT of young people out there that voted YES on 1 so your going to have to wait decades for them to die off too...

LewistonNative...'s picture
verified

Actually, statistics show

Actually, statistics show that only 10% of voters from 20-30 went out to vote. As for young people voting Yes on 1, that is rather false when places such as Portland, South Portland, Gorham, etc... were won with strong pushes from "younger" citizens.

98civb18c's picture

Fair enough but if the vote

Fair enough but if the vote was held in the june election when most of the college kids go home out of state we would see even less voters between the ages 20-30. Also im between those ages and voted yes

98civb18c's picture

Homosexuals do have the

Homosexuals do have the right to marry just someone not of the same sex. I know there is studies saying that homosexuals are born gay but there are also studies that say homosexuals suffer from a mental disorder. I know that the mental disorder is an older study but for every born gay study there is a mental disorder study and until the born gay studies can explain why and how homosexuals are born gay than same sex marriage will not pass.

bellegarde24's picture

So your alternative is that

So your alternative is that homosexuals should enter into loveless marriages with some one who they have no physical attraction to what so ever?

Some how that's more suitable then letting to gay people marry?

Yes homosexuality was one time deemed to be a mental disorder. And one time mental disorders were deemed to be demon possesions and people had there heads drilled into to let the bad demons out.

Study after study comes out with the data that shows homosexuality is innate and not something that can be cured or changed. No credibal pycological group, or study has come out to say anything that casts that into doubt and the studies continue to mount from every field is science that can be bent to the problem every one of them is trending in the same direction

98civb18c's picture

gaymainer I am not saying

gaymainer
I am not saying that homosexual should marry someone they do not love. I am saying the option to get married is out there for that person.

I do enjoy how you connect how people that had their heads drilled near a hundred years ago with studies done in the mid to late 1990s. Yes with recent studies they say homosexuals are born gay. but they can't really tell why it effects some and not other or why some people born gay wait 50 years to figure it out. Listen I don't know if homosexuals are born gay or choose to be gay (I know I know why would someone choose to be discriminated against, I am just stating my opinion) but until studies can lay all questions to rest then people will decide in there mind if homosexual choose to be gay or are born gay.

bellegarde24's picture

I'm sorry but I'm gonna have

I'm sorry but I'm gonna have to call your bull on that Why even bring up the asinine idea that Oh "Gay people can get married the just have to marry the opposite sex" These marriages, which do happen all the time ,are shames, but hey thats better then letting them marry who they'd realy like right? Look at the people who have done this look at the psychological damage this Idea has caused to people not only to the person who tried to shove there feelings so deep into the closet in order to try to be "normal" It only lasts so long, you can only fool yourself and others for so long before something breaks. And how many politicians has this happened to lately

Oh and why shouldn't I bring it up the mental illness is demon possession. Just last night I saw video of a preacher who truthfully believed that demons cause all the problems and was excosizing the demons of depression, and homosexuality from a boy. so it seemed apropriate sure he wasn't drilling into his head but maybe thats just cause the camera's were rolling

and no these studies your talking about didn't come about in the 90s these are studies from the 60s and 70's
Homosexuality was removed from the listings of a mental illness in the early 70s and the evidence has continued to mount since then. See the thing is no matter how many studies come out no matter how many times the "It's a chioce" people are shown there wrong it won't matter your all so sure your right it doesn't matter.

Abagmaglold's picture

A lot of those "gay people"

A lot of those "gay people" get married to a partner to have the nice home and children because they haven't been accepted by society's rules...I am a victim and survivor of a loveless marriage. It took me years to realize that the marriage was not fixable as my ex never accepted that he was gay. I couldn't prove it, but the signs were there.
Still, I think they have the right to get married if they want. What makes it right for a certain group to change the laws because they were coerced by the TV ads...what a bunch of sheep. I am ashamed to be a Mainer because of the yes vote that overturned the governor's bill.
You are right, GayMainer...we are definitely going backwards as far as civil liberties go.

Advertisement