Maine

[Platypus]

I didn't vote for Obama or care for his policies, but the majority has spoken. This is how voting works...

Apples and oranges.

Civil liberties of minorities should never be up for vote by the majority. Civil liberties should never be up for a vote period. It should be a guaranteed right as protected by the constitution.

Obama's silence on this makes it all the more frustrating. So much for empty campaign promises. This will not bode well for his re-election efforts for a lot of people.

 

[JDub02]

Everyone has the right to their own moral views, but not the right to impose them on others solely because they can muster a small majority.

Why can't a society decide what their own standards are? Isn't that how the whole democratic process works? The citizens of Maine made their choice. Either accept it and move on or come up with a better argument and try again.

And since when is marraige a right? Last I checked, the only thing it gets me is a little less paperwork come tax day. Besides, no one is stopping a homosexual from getting married. They just have to find someone of the opposite sex to marry just like everyone else who gets married. It's like driving on the left side of the road just because you woke up one day and decided you had a right to drive on the left side of the road ... and the rest of the world does it so we should to.

 

[Platypus]

Why can't a society decide what their own standards are? Isn't that how the whole democratic process works? The citizens of Maine made their choice. Either accept it and move on or come up with a better argument and try again.

And since when is marraige a right? Last I checked, the only thing it gets me is a little less paperwork come tax day. Besides, no one is stopping a homosexual from getting married. They just have to find someone of the opposite sex to marry just like everyone else who gets married. It's like driving on the left side of the road just because you woke up one day and decided you had a right to drive on the left side of the road ... and the rest of the world does it so we should to.

So you weren't really playing devil's advocate then? Thought not.

Your arguments are the same weak and tired bullshit that people who want to impose their own morality on others have. We're not talking about trite bullshit like which side of the road to drive on, we're talking about someone's fucking life and liberty here. Homosexuals do not marry people of the opposite sex.. it doesn't work like that and the fact it has to be explained to you is telling of how black and white your views are. How would you like it if I had a public vote to decide whether or not you could marry someone of the opposite sex. Put yourself in the shoes of the ones you so easily cast aside.

How about we hold a vote to see if blacks should have rights? Is that right to remove their freedoms because there was a 'democratic vote' on it?

When it comes down to it, there's not a single good argument to deprive someone of the same basic civil rights and equality that you have. You look fucking foolish even trying to justify it. That is not what America is supposed to be about. We now have another president that does NOTHING when under his control freedoms are taken away from Americans, not given.

The government either needs to stay out of marriage or offer the same benefits to any union, there is no other logical choice. I'm quite sure homosexuals don't want to be married by a religious organization that out of one mouth condemns them and out of the other tells their followers to love and respect everyone and treat them as they want to be treated. Zemmervolt's post is spot on.. there is no reason for their actions other than hate. Your god is supposed to preach love. Hypocritical bullshit.

 

[skyking]

Why can't a society decide what their own standards are? Isn't that how the whole democratic process works? The citizens of Maine made their choice. Either accept it and move on or come up with a better argument and try again.

And since when is marraige a right? Last I checked, the only thing it gets me is a little less paperwork come tax day. Besides, no one is stopping a homosexual from getting married. They just have to find someone of the opposite sex to marry just like everyone else who gets married. It's like driving on the left side of the road just because you woke up one day and decided you had a right to drive on the left side of the road ... and the rest of the world does it so we should to.

Not when doing so violates the very premise that our country was founded on.

 

[zinfamous]

Oh for the love of God. What the hell could anyone possibly find wrong with the Maine legislation? It explicitly protected any and all religious institutions from legal backlash if they refused to perform a ceremony for homosexual couples so there was literally no legitimate reason for the hyper-religious to be scared. All it did was make homosexual unions recognized by the state and grant such unions equal protection (and obligation) under the law. It didn't force churches to marry homosexual couples; it didn't make any demands on religious doctrine at all.

God damn it. The law that the Maine legislature had put into place should have been a model for the entire country and instead a bunch of backwards idiots went and fucked it all up.

Aye.

I wonder if those who make the argument that marriage is somehow a sacred institution, and is defined by the church, also accept marriages made in a court of law, on a cruise ship, wherever. It seems that this is the only argument that those "middle of the road" conservatives make when they claim that they aren't against homosexuals.

Of course, if they honestly believed that all they wanted to do was protect the "sacred definition of marriage," then they would be up in arms protesting about all of the marriages made outside of a church, synagogue, mosque, whatever.

I mean, it's not that the modern world has roundly accepted the fact that marriage is more of a legal matter than anything else for the past century, at least; and certainly not an exclusive institution of religious tribes people. I mean...it's not like the pro-gay marriage people have ever demanded that churches be forced to perform marriages that they don't agree with (they already reject couples through pre-marriage counseling).

Hell, why would anyone think such a politically motivated private institution should still be exempt from taxes? It's as if they consider themselves outside of the purview of the state. Rather clever, how they can accept federal tax exemptions, yet at the same time demand that they have a voice in the world of elected politics.
fascinating.

I say the best way to fight back is to tax the hell out of these sheltered cave men. Silence them through poverty

 

[Mike Gayner]

That said, it is fairly hypocritical to get behind and support a vote for the legalization of gay marriage and then cry foul when you don't get the result you wanted. The vote was put to the democratic process, and the majority decided against it. Democracy does not mean that if you don't get things your way, then boo to the process.

Aaah, you're one of those people who think democracy = majority rules. I thought most people grew out of that facile definition by about the age of 8, but I guess not. I don't suppose it is worth mentioning to you that the cornerstone of democracy is the protection of a minority from the oppression of the majority.

 

[Jeeebus]

Aaah, you're one of those people who think democracy = majority rules. I thought most people grew out of that facile definition by about the age of 8, but I guess not. I don't suppose it is worth mentioning to you that the cornerstone of democracy is the protection of a minority from the oppression of the majority.

you seem to be missing my point. The only point I was making is that you can't, on one hand, lobby for an amendment/vote legalizing gay marriage - taking the vote to the citizenry of the state - and on the other hand, throw a shitstorm when the vote does not go the way you want.

Personally, I think gays should be able to marry anyone they want. What I honestly struggle with is whether marriage is a fundamental right that should be defined by our Constitution or whether it's more appropriate for each state's citizens to decide (as was done here).

__________________

 

[T9D]

...

 

[nageov3t]

it's always nice to know that Obama has more time to pimp out the Chicago Olympics than lift a finger to help equal rights.

 

[Mike Gayner]

you seem to be missing my point. The only point I was making is that you can't, on one hand, lobby for an amendment/vote legalizing gay marriage - taking the vote to the citizenry of the state - and on the other hand, throw a shitstorm when the vote does not go the way you want.

You're missing my point - this should never have been put to public vote in the first place. LBGTs shouldn't have to ask for your permission in the first place on whether they can marry, but unfortunately it was their only option. At that time it should have become entrenched.

We will look back on these days in disgust, hopefully within my lifetime. Then again, USA has always been a little slow on civil rights. Emancipation and suffrage are the two that come to mind.

 

[Phokus]

Just a reminder that republicans are terrible people:

http://img94.imageshack.us/i/freerepublic.jpg/

 

[Zenmervolt]

Then again, USA has always been a little slow on civil rights. Emancipation and suffrage are the two that come to mind.

Because we all know that New Zealand has always been a staunch advocate of the Māori...

Oh, wait...

Look, the fact of the matter is that all cultures have their issues with civil rights whether it be New Zealand's treatment of the Māori, or Canada's Indian Residential Schools. The US is no different from any other culture in this regard. This does not excuse the US from needing to change, but it does render your cute little jabs in a somewhat jingoistic light.

 

[zinfamous]

you seem to be missing my point. The only point I was making is that you can't, on one hand, lobby for an amendment/vote legalizing gay marriage - taking the vote to the citizenry of the state - and on the other hand, throw a shitstorm when the vote does not go the way you want.

Personally, I think gays should be able to marry anyone they want. What I honestly struggle with is whether marriage is a fundamental right that should be defined by our Constitution or whether it's more appropriate for each state's citizens to decide (as was done here).

__________________

this isn't how it happens, though. it's usually the anti-gays that introduce referendums or ballot measures to REPEAL civil liberties granted by the courts.

The pro-homosexual groups aren't introducing any measure; they're fighting against the bigots' "right" to infringe upon a minority group's equality.

 

[clamum]

Just a reminder that republicans are terrible people:

http://img94.imageshack.us/i/freerepublic.jpg/

Hahaha weird you'd show your foolish face here. And there was actually decent discussion going on too. Back to P&N little troll.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Because we all know that New Zealand has always been a staunch advocate of the Māori...

Oh, wait...

Uh I didn't really want to get into this, but Maori have always had exactly the same rights as everyone else in the country since the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi. I'm guessing you're not exactly an expert on NZ history.

 

[Jschmuck2]

Why can't a society decide what their own standards are? Isn't that how the whole democratic process works? The citizens of Maine made their choice. Either accept it and move on or come up with a better argument and try again.

And since when is marraige a right? Last I checked, the only thing it gets me is a little less paperwork come tax day. Besides, no one is stopping a homosexual from getting married. They just have to find someone of the opposite sex to marry just like everyone else who gets married. It's like driving on the left side of the road just because you woke up one day and decided you had a right to drive on the left side of the road ... and the rest of the world does it so we should to.

Location: The South

Bee-eautiful

 

[Jschmuck2]

I agree with Maine. They made the right choice.

People voted and most choose to not support gay marriage. The gay supporters always bash the masses, ridicule and degrade others who don't. It's really sad. Like their opinion is the only one that matters and everyone else is scum if we don't agree with them. Yet most people in the country feel the opposite. Just because you can yell louder and trash everyone else doesn't mean you are right. In your mind you may think you are right. But that's your OPINION. Accept that other people have a different opinion than you.

What? Why?

Yes, it's all a matter of opinion. But your opinion, no matter how backwards or stupid it might be, should not be grounds enough to strip rights away from a minority. Because you think gay is "icky," doesn't mean a thing to anyone but you.

I think spiders are icky and yet they continue to roam the lands un-legislated. WTF Democracy?!??!!

 

[BeauJangles]

I agree with Maine. They made the right choice.

People voted and most choose to not support gay marriage. The gay supporters always bash the masses, ridicule and degrade others who don't. It's really sad. Like their opinion is the only one that matters and everyone else is scum if we don't agree with them. Yet most people in the country feel the opposite. Just because you can yell louder and trash everyone else doesn't mean you are right. In your mind you may think you are right. But that's your OPINION. Accept that other people have a different opinion than you.

So it would be alright if, say, New York put an amendment banning marriage between blacks and whites on the ballot? What if such a measure won? That would be democracy to you?

What if Florida passed an amendment saying that hispanics couldn't assemble in public anymore? Would that also be okay?

Sorry, but the majority of this country has never supported extending rights to people who deserve them.

 

[FelixDeCat]

I say let the people decide. Gay people are not the same as everyone else, everyone knows this.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Apples and oranges.

Civil liberties of minorities should never be up for vote by the majority. Civil liberties should never be up for a vote period. It should be a guaranteed right as protected by the constitution.

Obama's silence on this makes it all the more frustrating. So much for empty campaign promises. This will not bode well for his re-election efforts for a lot of people.

For the record, I have no problems what so ever with two men, two women, a man and a woman getting together and doing what they want to do. What two consenting adults do is their own business in my opinion.

With that being said, I do have some reservations about gay marriage. Though I do feel that from a government standpoint, two gay adults should be able to enter a domestic partnership and have all of the same tax benefits and everything else that a married man and woman have. I don't see why that should be different from a government stand point. But I can also see how some people can not see it as 'natural' or something and have some issues with it being 'marriage'. I know I'll probably be bashed for this, but it is my opinion... and before I'm labeled as a Christian conservative, I'm not. < shrug >

 

[ElFenix]

I agree with Maine. They made the right choice.

People voted and most choose to not support gay marriage. The gay supporters always bash the masses, ridicule and degrade others who don't. It's really sad. Like their opinion is the only one that matters and everyone else is scum if we don't agree with them. Yet most people in the country feel the opposite. Just because you can yell louder and trash everyone else doesn't mean you are right. In your mind you may think you are right. But that's your OPINION. Accept that other people have a different opinion than you.

problem is that gay marriage really impacts the happiness of one group of people but largely doesn't impact the happiness of the other group of people. so sheer numbers isn't doing any justice to the relative utility for each group.

Uh I didn't really want to get into this, but Maori have always had exactly the same rights as everyone else in the country since the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi. I'm guessing you're not exactly an expert on NZ history.

oh sure they have

 

[jonks]

For the record, I have no problems what so ever with two men, two women, a man and a woman getting together and doing what they want to do. What two consenting adults do is their own business in my opinion.

With that being said, I do have some reservations about gay marriage. Though I do feel that from a government standpoint, two gay adults should be able to enter a domestic partnership and have all of the same tax benefits and everything else that a married man and woman have. I don't see why that should be different from a government stand point. But I can also see how some people can not see it as 'natural' or something and have some issues with it being 'marriage'. I know I'll probably be bashed for this, but it is my opinion... and before I'm labeled as a Christian conservative, I'm not. < shrug >

Problem is that's not a legal argument. You can't deny people rights simply because you disagree with them. Plenty of people thought interracial marriage was "unnatural". Tough shit. Almost everyone thinks white supremicists are despicable and evil, but they still have the right to publish their literature, assemble and preach their position, and otherwise enjoy their first amendment rights. Disagree? Too bad.

Your argument, or lack thereof, has no weight. People are simply voting their prejudices, which is what the 14th amendment is supposed to protect against. If you or others can put forth some logical argument that makes sense about the harms or evils of gay marriage, go for it. I haven't seen one and it's been 10 years of heated debate. The Iowa SC addressed and pretty much destroyed every argument ever raised against gay marriage.

In a case pending in California to legalize same sex marriage, the judge asked the attorney opposing the legalization what harm could come from permitting the practice. His answer? "I don't know." Sums it up.

 

[Platypus]

For the record, I have no problems what so ever with two men, two women, a man and a woman getting together and doing what they want to do. What two consenting adults do is their own business in my opinion.

With that being said, I do have some reservations about gay marriage. Though I do feel that from a government standpoint, two gay adults should be able to enter a domestic partnership and have all of the same tax benefits and everything else that a married man and woman have. I don't see why that should be different from a government stand point. But I can also see how some people can not see it as 'natural' or something and have some issues with it being 'marriage'. I know I'll probably be bashed for this, but it is my opinion... and before I'm labeled as a Christian conservative, I'm not. < shrug >

Just curious, if you're fine with giving same sex couples the same rights then why does it matter what it is called? Why is the divorce rate so high in this country if people are so concerned with protecting the sanctity of marriage?

Why does it matter so much? This does not impact any of you one single bit.

Honestly, that argument has no ground to stand on considering said divorce rates. Divorce isn't 'natural' either, unless 'till death do us part' has a caveat that I'm not aware of. Not to mention your argument has absolutely no legal footing either...

 

[Jeeebus]

Problem is that's not a legal argument. You can't deny people rights simply because you disagree with them. Plenty of people thought interracial marriage was "unnatural". Tough shit. Almost everyone thinks white supremicists are despicable and evil, but they still have the right to publish their literature, assemble and preach their position, and otherwise enjoy their first amendment rights. Disagree? Too bad.

Your argument, or lack thereof, has no weight. People are simply voting their prejudices, which is what the 14th amendment is supposed to protect against. If you or others can put forth some logical argument that makes sense about the harms or evils of gay marriage, go for it. I haven't seen one and it's been 10 years of heated debate. The Iowa SC addressed and pretty much destroyed every argument ever raised against gay marriage.

In a case pending in California to legalize same sex marriage, the judge asked the attorney opposing the legalization what harm could come from permitting the practice. His answer? "I don't know." Sums it up.

not to play devil's advocate, but what is the legal argument that same sex marriage is a fundamental right that should be protected? Nobody is arguing that KKK members don't have the right to assemble, as we have a fairly clear 1st Amendment and Supreme Court jurisprudence saying so. But where does the right to same-sex marriage come into play? I'm not saying you can't make the legal argument - because I think you can (perhaps likening it to the striking down of interracial marriage bans) - but you can't criticize him for not making a legal argument when yours is "what we do doesn't affect you."

A lot of smart judges have considered this issue, and while most have punted the issue to the state legislature, there isn't a lot of judicial support for the fundamental right argument outside of California. Yes, each state has its own individual Constitution, but if you're talking about legalization across the board, we really have to look at the Federal Constitution, and as far as I know, there's no federal judge that has declared same-sex marriage a fundamental right - and frankly, I suspect most federal judges have more knowledge of the law than you or I, me being a practicing attorney and all.

 

[Terzo]

It seems to me like all the arguments against this are based on religion; i.e. the bible says homosexuality is wrong which means gay marriage should not be allowed. I haven't looked it up, but I feel like this is something separation of church and state would prohibit. As far as I'm concerned, it would be like requiring women in the states to wear a burqa and hijab because the quran requires women to cover themselves.

On a side note, are there countries where the religion and state allow gay marriage? I'd assume anywhere that's predominantly islam/christian/jewish would not allow it, but maybe hindus or buddhists allow it. Hell, I could see China encouraging gay marriages as another population control measure.