Set an example

Martha - the hypocrisy of the GAYS reek. By your 'anything goes' foolhardy beliefs, you are ushering in the pedophilia era. Once, about 35 years ago, hardly anyone would have believed that gay sex would be accepted in any way. I predict because of misled, gullible people like you that in 30 years or less pedophilia will have its heyday as the gays are having their 'heyday' today. The APA has already published a study showing that 15 year old boys had no negative effects from having affairs with older men. I know how disgusting this sounds everyone but it is coming!
Martha - you have been filled with lies about the gay gene and the postmodernism's anything-goes era. Warning - sin has consequences; your choices will lead to consequences. Turn away from your homosexual lifestyle and quit falling for the lies of that destructive lifestyle that lead to early death and increased diseases across the spectrum. No one can deny those facts. Quit shoving your beliefs down the throats of Mainers. If you bring the vote back it will only go worse for your side. You took your very best shot and lost by 30,000 votes in a small state!

Martha said,

"Webster's definition of democracy includes "the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges." That means history and tradition are not acceptable excuses to deny anyone equal status or benefits under the law. The U.S. Supreme Court has already struck down "separate but equal" as unconstitutional. Any attempt to recreate such a system is rightfully doomed to fail."

Martha, the key word there is "arbitrary." The State does not arbitrarily extend bennefits and/or privileges to married couples. It has a reason for doing so. It is because traditional monogamous marriage and the family that is the result, is the basic building block of society.

That does not infringe on anyone's rights. And though we may all be "created equal", we, as citizens of Maine, and by extension, citizens of the United States, certainly do not have equal status or bennefits under the law, married or otherwise. Look around. There are plenty of class distinctions; the "rich", the "middle-class", the "poor", the "homeless" and the list goes on. You can beat any rap if you have enough dough to get a really slick attorney (remember OJ?)

If "separate but equal" is, as you say, unconstitutional, then the "Equality in Marriage" law would have been unconstitutional. It created two "separate but equal" definitions of marriage (religious and civil) and granted certain immunities for religous organizations who did not wish to recognize same-sex "marriage."

For arguments sake, let us assume that other couples and/or families are being denied certain bennefits and privileges that are currently offered to married couples, and that it is a "bad" or "unfair" practice. It would be far more logical to simply pass legislation extending those bennefits to same sex couples, non-married couples and single parent households.

I think you'll find that most Mainers would favor such an approach. It would leave the concept of traditional marriage intact, while ensuring that all Maine couples and families recieve equal bennefits and privileges.

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)

The parrot has set up a cheese tray in the back of the room for the whiners.

Fear not the enemy at the gate, for it is the enemy within that will devour you.

The Yes on 1 capaign was not a campaign to repeal Marriage Equality; its was as its supporters so frequently said and wrote a campaign to force gays back in the closet.
They want to discourage gay Mainers from living here by making Maine "gay unfriendly". They hope gay Mainers will move to Mass. or elsewhere that they can get their full civil rights. If that doesn't work they want to return to the pre-US Supreme Court decision on sodomy when they could imprison or kill gay with impunity. Won't work. We, those who believe in equal rights, will stop you. Jon Albrecht Dixfield

I was a co-chairman on YES on #1, our signs were trashed, people were threatened and are still being threatened. The NO signs in our area were very few and in the surrounding towns also. We won and we will keep fighting for marriage as one man and one woman. I caught someone trying to rip the sign off my vehicle. Sun Journal did their job, live with it.

Come on get real your pissed about the word "torpedoed"? Is the word "torpedoed" some gay term I don't know about? If anyone is juvenile and unprofessional it is the way the "No on 1" have been since their side lost. I didn't vote on question 1 this time because I didn't want to pick a side but I think the "No of 1" people have made up my mind to vote against them next time this comes up to vote.

Do I smell law suit here?

After the voting was done, the NO on 1 campaign got more coverage then the YES on 1 campaign...

I don't recall seeing any articles congratulating the YES on 1 campaign.

And I hate to correct you Martha D. Palmer but this was the final was 47% not 48%

99% OF PRECINCTS REPORTING
Yes 299,483 53%
No 267,574 47%

(information obtained from: http://www.wgme.com/sections/community/closings/elections.shtml)

Also have you noticed that most if not all articles are how no on 1 lost and not that yes on 1 won.