Maine Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: coloumb
From a legal standpoint - this is good news for 2 people who want to be legally bound to each others assets

Nothin' like a nice piece of asset.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

That is true if your view of marriage is simply a government-regulated contract between two or more entities negotiating a sharing of resources.

Well considering we are specifically talking about the government regulated contract and not the religious institution, what other areas do you think we should include?

What makes you think they can be separated in such a way?

Drivethrough wedding chapels in Las Vegas can hardly be considered a religious experience, though they are legally binding marriages. So is being married by a justice of the peace in a courtroom. Pagans can have religious handfasting ceremonies that aren't recognized by the state without that marriage license. Come to think of it, how on Earth could you possibly argue that marriage has not been separated into a religious ceremony and a government recognized union?

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Mackie2k
Because I believe that somethings should be sacred and not shared by everyone you call me a bigot.

Yeah! Like voting. Or NOT being property. Or exercising free will. Or riding in the front of buses. Some things are SACRED, and should not be shared by everyone. :disgust:

You're a bigot by your own words.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Pagans can have religious handfasting ceremonies that aren't recognized by the state without that marriage license.

Actually, any religion can have a ceremony purporting to marry two people, but said ceremony won't be recognized without a state marriage license. Some Christian sects have been marrying gays for years, but obviously, there's no state license involved, so those unions are not recognized under the law (until recently, in some states). A license is only required if you want your marriage to be 'legal' - that is, recognized under the law - but there's nothing preventing you from exchanging vows with your beloved under whatever circumstances you please.

 

[jonks]

Look at how abnormal and freakish these people are:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_WuhJSBzKs

My god, can you imagine what would happen if gay marriage were state sanctioned? That child, I feel so sorry for her. She has no chance at a normal life now, you know she is just damaged goods waiting to fall into the gutter. This cannot be allowed to stand.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Religion played absolutely no part whatsoever in my wedding. No church, no holy man (just a friend ordained via the internet), no mentions of any higher power in the vows... sounds like the separation is complete.

My wedding wasn't religious. Unless you include Elvis.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
My wedding wasn't religious. Unless you include Elvis.

For some people, that would definitely qualify as a religious experience.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

That is true if your view of marriage is simply a government-regulated contract between two or more entities negotiating a sharing of resources.

Well considering we are specifically talking about the government regulated contract and not the religious institution, what other areas do you think we should include?

What makes you think they can be separated in such a way?

The question is, what makes YOU think it cannot be separated in such a way?

The next question is that since we have freedom of religion in this country, who are you to say they belong to churches that allow and support gay marriage?

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: Mackie2k

Originally posted by: andy9o
SNIP

I agree with the governor, that separation cannot be legal. Even among the "liberal" parties politicians, not many get this.

Depends on your definition of marriage. I see it as between a man and a woman....

But I see being "gay" as a genetic disorder. You are born that way, and it's something that is phsically wrong with you, not a choice by anymeans. Doesn't mean we should support that way of life as normal.

Good thing your definition of marriage doesn't matter, and your view of homosexuality is irrelevant.

His point has validity. Homosexuality is not the norm. It is a disorder. Look at he human race, and hell ALL animals, we have males and females because we need them to reproduce. Male/Male doesn't work, Female/Female doesn't work either (but is fun to watch).
Also, lets not confuse Marraige, with Civil-Union. Marraige is a religous thing. You get married by a priest, rabbi, cleric, monk, whatever, but every religion in the world looks down on homosexuality and does not endorse it.
Time and time again, a State puts it to the vote and the populace always votes against it, yet the gays bitch and moan and cry their way to court to get the wishes of the MAJORITY over turned.
To bad, lifes not fair. I'm ugly, can I sue to force hot chicks to date me?

The simple facts are, gays are a minority of the population and if the majority thinks that gay marraige is bad, then that's the way it should be. Isn't that how democratic societies work, rule of the majority?
You and Perez Hilton may think you're in the right, but you are a miniscule portion of the United States and you shouldn't force your beliefs on the majority.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Also, lets not confuse Marraige, with Civil-Union.

Ok, let's not.

Marraige is a religous thing. You get married by a priest, rabbi, cleric, monk, whatever

No, only sometimes it's a religious thing. When a justice of the peace marries two people, it's not religious. I think even you might concede 2 atheists getting married is not a religious ceremony.

but every religion in the world looks down on homosexuality and does not endorse it.

Demonstrably false, better known as utter bullshit.

I'm ugly, can I sue to force hot chicks to date me?

We can't help you here.

The simple facts are, gays are a minority of the population and if the majority thinks that gay marraige is bad, then that's the way it should be. Isn't that how democratic societies work, rule of the majority? You and Perez Hilton may think you're in the right, but you are a miniscule portion of the United States and you shouldn't force your beliefs on the majority.

See Brown v Bd of Ed. Also, if 51% of the US in 1860 approved of slavery, then it'd be ok with you? Nice. Go look up the definition of Representative Democracy and contrast it with Pure Democracy.

Oh, and more than 40% of the US supports marriage equality for gays, a far cry from your "miniscule minority." Facts suck sometimes.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

The simple facts are, gays are a minority of the population and if the majority thinks that gay marraige is bad, then that's the way it should be. Isn't that how democratic societies work, rule of the majority? You and Perez Hilton may think you're in the right, but you are a miniscule portion of the United States and you shouldn't force your beliefs on the majority.

See Brown v Bd of Ed. Also, if 51% of the US in 1860 approved of slavery, then it'd be ok with you? Nice.

I swear it's like people have never heard of the Constitution.

IN CERTAIN CASES NO, IF THE MAJORITY THINKS SOMETHING IT'S STILL NOT OKAY.

 

[Mackie2k]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: Mackie2k

Originally posted by: andy9o
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITI...ex.marriage/index.html

(CNN) -- Same-sex marriage became legal in Maine on Wednesday as Gov. John Baldacci signed a bill less than an hour after the state legislature approved it.
Maine Gov. John Baldacci signed a bill Wednesday legalizing same-sex marriage.

"I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage," said Baldacci, a Democrat.

But he raised the possibility that the residents of the state would overturn the law, saying, "Just as the Maine Constitution demands that all people are treated equally under the law, it also guarantees that the ultimate political power in the State belongs to the people."

Three other states -- Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa -- allow same-sex marriages. Vermont has passed a law making gay and lesbian marriages legal that takes effect in September. New Hampshire lawmakers are close to passing a similar bill.

On Tuesday, the Washington City Council voted to recognize same-sex marriages from states that allow those unions. Mayor Adrian Fenty has indicated that he will sign the measure. It will become law if Congress fails to overturn the measure during a 30-day review period.

A slim majority of Americans are against legal recognition for same-sex marriage, CNN polling found last month.

Fifty-four percent of adults questioned in an April 23-26 nationwide CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll said that marriages between gay or lesbian couples should not be recognized as valid, while 44 percent said they should be considered legal.

The survey's sampling error was plus or minus 3 percentage points.

I agree with the governor, that separation cannot be legal. Even among the "liberal" parties politicians, not many get this.

Depends on your definition of marriage. I see it as between a man and a woman....

But I see being "gay" as a genetic disorder. You are born that way, and it's something that is phsically wrong with you, not a choice by anymeans. Doesn't mean we should support that way of life as normal.

Good thing your definition of marriage doesn't matter, and your view of homosexuality is irrelevant.

His point has validity. Homosexuality is not the norm. It is a disorder. Look at he human race, and hell ALL animals, we have males and females because we need them to reproduce. Male/Male doesn't work, Female/Female doesn't work either (but is fun to watch).
Also, lets not confuse Marraige, with Civil-Union. Marraige is a religous thing. You get married by a priest, rabbi, cleric, monk, whatever, but every religion in the world looks down on homosexuality and does not endorse it.
Time and time again, a State puts it to the vote and the populace always votes against it, yet the gays bitch and moan and cry their way to court to get the wishes of the MAJORITY over turned.
To bad, lifes not fair. I'm ugly, can I sue to force hot chicks to date me?

The simple facts are, gays are a minority of the population and if the majority thinks that gay marraige is bad, then that's the way it should be. Isn't that how democratic societies work, rule of the majority?
You and Perez Hilton may think you're in the right, but you are a miniscule portion of the United States and you shouldn't force your beliefs on the majority.

Amen.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Mackie2k
Amen.

You approve and bless a post riddled with factual inacuracies that I point out above because you agree with the sentiment.

This is why you people will lose this argument. Ya got nothing except a lobotomized understanding of equal protection and an implicit approval of segregation and anti-miscegenation statutues since those were "majority" positions.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: jonks
This is why you people will lose this argument. Ya got nothing except a lobotomized understanding of equal protection.

I've been quite clear that I support gay marriage, but I don't necessarily buy equal protection arguments either. I'm leery of expanding 'suspect classes' to include a characteristic based on behavior, not genetics. I'd much rather this issue get settled on a state by state basis within the democratic process.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: jonks
This is why you people will lose this argument. Ya got nothing except a lobotomized understanding of equal protection.

I've been quite clear that I support gay marriage, but I don't necessarily buy equal protection arguments either. I'm leery of expanding 'suspect classes' to include a characteristic based on behavior, not genetics. I'd much rather this issue get settled on a state by state basis within the democratic process.

Even though the evidence currently available STRONGLY suggests a genetic (or at least otherwise unchangeable and biological) origin for homosexuality?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: jonks
This is why you people will lose this argument. Ya got nothing except a lobotomized understanding of equal protection.

I've been quite clear that I support gay marriage, but I don't necessarily buy equal protection arguments either. I'm leery of expanding 'suspect classes' to include a characteristic based on behavior, not genetics. I'd much rather this issue get settled on a state by state basis within the democratic process.

Expanding suspect classes to include sexual orientation aside, I was referring to his arguments in defense of, in favor of, and preference FOR for tyranny of the majority despite any blatant equal protection violations whether based on race, sex, or anything else. To wit:

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
if the majority thinks that gay marraige is bad, then that's the way it should be. Isn't that how democratic societies work, rule of the majority?

!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: jonks
This is why you people will lose this argument. Ya got nothing except a lobotomized understanding of equal protection.

I've been quite clear that I support gay marriage, but I don't necessarily buy equal protection arguments either. I'm leery of expanding 'suspect classes' to include a characteristic based on behavior, not genetics. I'd much rather this issue get settled on a state by state basis within the democratic process.

Even though the evidence currently available STRONGLY suggests a genetic (or at least otherwise unchangeable and biological) origin for homosexuality?

Out of curiosity, if they find a "gene" or whatever for homosexuality - would you support designer baby buyers(that's what I call them) screening it out? Or would they be bigots/homophobes/etc?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

The simple facts are, gays are a minority of the population and if the majority thinks that gay marraige is bad, then that's the way it should be. Isn't that how democratic societies work, rule of the majority?

No, that is not how it works. In fact, your uninformed, bigoted, myopic misunderstanding of how democracy actually "works" is exactly what can make democracy fail.

In 1859, in the introduction to his famed essay, On Liberty, English philosopher John Stuart Mill warned of a danger to liberty to which democracies are prone which he called "the tyranny of the majority."

Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant ? society collectively over the separate individuals who compose it ? its means of tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates; and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development and, if possible, prevent the formation of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence; and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs as protection against political despotism.

? On Liberty, The Library of Liberal Arts edition, p.7.

Read the last three sentences closely. Here they are separated for ease of reading:

• Society can and does execute its own mandates; and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself.
  
• Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development and, if possible, prevent the formation of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own.
  
• There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence; and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs as protection against political despotism.

You and Perez Hilton may think you're in the right, but you are a miniscule portion of the United States and you shouldn't force your beliefs on the majority.

Gays are entitled to the same rights to live do in their own lives as anyone else. Who they choose to love, is not your business or the business of any majority. You and the rest of the pathetic homophobes who would deny them equal rights ARE the tyrannical majority Mill warns us about. :thumbsdown: :|

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: jonks
This is why you people will lose this argument. Ya got nothing except a lobotomized understanding of equal protection.

I've been quite clear that I support gay marriage, but I don't necessarily buy equal protection arguments either. I'm leery of expanding 'suspect classes' to include a characteristic based on behavior, not genetics. I'd much rather this issue get settled on a state by state basis within the democratic process.

Religion is a protected class, and it is certainly a behavioral choice. Sexual orientation is not.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: jonks
This is why you people will lose this argument. Ya got nothing except a lobotomized understanding of equal protection.

I've been quite clear that I support gay marriage, but I don't necessarily buy equal protection arguments either. I'm leery of expanding 'suspect classes' to include a characteristic based on behavior, not genetics. I'd much rather this issue get settled on a state by state basis within the democratic process.

Even though the evidence currently available STRONGLY suggests a genetic (or at least otherwise unchangeable and biological) origin for homosexuality?

It very well may be, but as a practical matter, we really can't establish who's gay and who's not in a neat and tidy fashion, which makes protecting them as a suspect class, or even granting them rights based on something we can't really define (sexual orientation) an ill-defined mess I'd rather the law avoid. Instead, I simply see the gov't lacking the right to deny marriage licenses to anyone based simply on the composition of their proposed marriage, any more than gov't can't refuse to enforce a contract because it's between a man and a woman instead of between two men (or whatever). Legally, marriage is little more than a contract.

I also dislike the idea of special rights or protections for ANY subsets of society (such as hate crime laws). Generally, all rights should be based in one's humanity, not one's sex/race/etc. For example, the law should protect gays from, say, being assaulted because gays are human, not because gays are gay.

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Out of curiosity, if they find a "gene" or whatever for homosexuality - would you support designer baby buyers(that's what I call them) screening it out? Or would they be bigots/homophobes/etc?

eskimospy can answer for himself, but I think it's highly unethical to screen for sexual orientation. It is not a disability, disorder or disease. It is not a problem, and it does not need curing.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: Mursilis
I'm leery of expanding 'suspect classes' to include a characteristic based on behavior, not genetics.

Religion is a protected class, and it is certainly a behavioral choice.

Killer point

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: jonks
This is why you people will lose this argument. Ya got nothing except a lobotomized understanding of equal protection.

I've been quite clear that I support gay marriage, but I don't necessarily buy equal protection arguments either. I'm leery of expanding 'suspect classes' to include a characteristic based on behavior, not genetics. I'd much rather this issue get settled on a state by state basis within the democratic process.

Religion is a protected class, and it is certainly a behavioral choice. Sexual orientation is not.

True, and very good point, but then again, religion is also an explicitly protected right in the Constitution.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

It very well may be, but as a practical matter, we really can't establish who's gay and who's not in a neat and tidy fashion, which makes protecting them as a suspect class, or even granting them rights based on something we can't really define (sexual orientation) an ill-defined mess I'd rather the law avoid. Instead, I simply see the gov't lacking the right to deny marriage licenses to anyone based simply on the composition of their proposed marriage, any more than gov't can't refuse to enforce a contract because it's between a man and a woman instead of between two men (or whatever). Legally, marriage is little more than a contract.

I also dislike the idea of special rights or protections for ANY subsets of society (such as hate crime laws). Generally, all rights should be based in one's humanity, not one's sex/race/etc. For example, the law should protect gays from, say, being assaulted because gays are human, not because gays are gay.

We do exactly that based upon race, and what constitutes a race is pretty much the definition of something that can't be established in a neat and tidy fashion as it's a completely invented social construct that's constantly changing.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Out of curiosity, if they find a "gene" or whatever for homosexuality - would you support designer baby buyers(that's what I call them) screening it out? Or would they be bigots/homophobes/etc?

eskimospy can answer for himself, but I think it's highly unethical to screen for sexual orientation. It is not a disability, disorder or disease. It is not a problem, and it does not need curing.

They do it for eye color and other such things, which are not a "disability, disorder or disease". So you think they'd be bigots/homophobes/etc if they screened for this yet to be found "gene" which makes "genetic" instead of behavior?