Maine

[Platypus]

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.

The churches get tax breaks for the separation of church and state but then blatantly send a giant 'fuck you' to the government by pouring millions of dollars into their hate campaigns. Churches guilty of this should lose their tax benefits immediately but it's allowed to happen again and again. It's a technicality but a patently obvious one. These same churches are struggling to keep their doors open but still have enough money to spend trying to force their fractured morality into law.

It makes you wonder when countries like Norway have more liberties than America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Norway

Norway has had discrimination laws on the book since 1981. Nineteen fucking eighty-one.
This is what people in Maine think:
http://maine.gov/sos/cec/elec/pets02/prosexorient.htm

It grows more and more a pathetic joke to call America the land of the free as days go by.

 

[sash1]

not happy with my hometown state right now

 

[A Casual Fitz]

Hey I voted no...

 

[Platypus]

Hey I voted no...

thank you!

 

[jonks]

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.

As am I. Plenty of legal arguments have been made, in Iowa, Mass, Connecticut and California where they succeeded, and those arguments are applicable to the US Const as well. I believe the cases were based on the 14th amendment equal protection state corollaries. I know the Washington SC heard a case in 2006 and found (5-4) the legislature did have a legitimate state interest in defining marriage as man-woman only, but the legislature's argument was that it had an interest in protective children (from who? are kids better off in foster care?) and encouraging procreation, both patently laughable arguments at this point in history (how does permitting same-sex marriage discourage hetero couples from procreating?) Weak sauce. In the face of the arguments for equality, the arguments presented thus far against allowing the practice are bunk and must be difficult to utter with a straight face.

 

[Antny6]

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.

My personal take has always been that marriage itself isn't a right, but equal treatment of individuals by government is. "All men are created equal..." and whatnot.

Marriage, as viewed by the government, is a legal contract. I take issue with the fact that the individuals allowed to enter into this contract and reap the benefits thereof are screened based on nothing more than the sex of the participants. I see no rational reason why my roommate was able to obtain a long list of legal rights by paying a couple hundred dollars to register his marriage with the state and I had to spend a similar amount to register my domestic partnership and then another couple of thousand on legal documents to make sure that I have power of attorney should something happen while on vacation outside the state.

The only reasons I've ever heard are based on religion, "that's the way it's always been", or based on support of the traditional nuclear family. Religion and "that's the way it's always been" are not a good basis for law and the traditional nuclear family isn't all it's cracked up to be these days.

 

[MrMatt]

Isn't that how we eliminated slavery, gave women the right to vote, ended segregation, allowed interracial marriage, and then gave african americans civil rights?

no. Not at all. Those were all constitutional amendments, and laws passed by the legislature.

 

[jonks]

bleh, sorry, I don't like this quoting limited to one level thing...

 

[Platypus]

As am I. Plenty of legal arguments have been made, in Iowa, Mass, Connecticut and California where they succeeded, and those arguments are applicable to the US Const as well. I believe the cases were based on the 14th amendment equal protection state corollaries. I know the Washington SC heard a case in 2006 and found (5-4) the legislature did have a legitimate state interest in defining marriage as man-woman only, but the legislature's argument was that it had an interest in protective children (from who? are kids better off in foster care?) and encouraging procreation, both patently laughable arguments at this point in history (how does permitting same-sex marriage discourage hetero couples from procreating?) Weak sauce. In the face of the arguments for equality, the arguments presented thus far against allowing the practice are bunk and must be difficult to utter with a straight face.

I just hope this Maine bullshit doesn't undo what has been done in other states. This shit needs to be federal but unfortunately this is an uphill battle that has to be won state by state before anyone will do anything. I'm extremely disappointed in Obama's silence on the issue and his inactivity in general.

 

[SlowSpyder]

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.

I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm just saying I can see why to many they may not consider it natural. It's obviously not how nature works, that's not to say it's wrong as we do many things not intended by nature, but I'm just saying I can see how to people it seems 'unnatural' and therefore odd or even so far as 'wrong' to have two people of the same sex married.

Another thing, whether you, myself, or any of us like it or not, while there is supposed to be some sort of gap between church and state, this country was built on many Christian ideals. Too many marriage is still associated with religion. To many others it's not. To the government it's pretty much a change in tax status. I don't see why a gay couple shouldn't be able be recongized by the government for tax reasons, or any other benefits a married couple might get. I can see why a lot of people may be uncomfortable with the label of 'marriage'.

To address the last thing you said, this isn't an arguement so much against gay marriage, but just something to think about if it hasn't ever been brought up to you. Right now the line is drawn at gay marriage in most states. Let's erase that line, but the line is still drawn before polygamy. Polygamists lobby and want their marriages legalized. Then those who feel 18 is way too old as an age of consent want to have the rights that the others have. Some guy loves his dog, I mean LOVES his dog... should that be illegal? I mean we do lots of things to animals now... An extreme example, and some not so extreme examples to illustrate my point. Where do we draw the line? Where is the 'correct' place?

 

[Jschmuck2]

I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm just saying I can see why to many they may not consider it natural. It's obviously not how nature works, that's not to say it's wrong as we do many things not intended by nature, but I'm just saying I can see how to people it seems 'unnatural' and therefore odd or even so far as 'wrong' to have two people of the same sex married.

Another thing, whether you, myself, or any of us like it or not, while there is supposed to be some sort of gap between church and state, this country was built on many Christian ideals. Too many marriage is still associated with religion. To many others it's not. To the government it's pretty much a change in tax status. I don't see why a gay couple shouldn't be able be recongized by the government for tax reasons, or any other benefits a married couple might get. I can see why a lot of people may be uncomfortable with the label of 'marriage'.

To address the last thing you said, this isn't an arguement so much against gay marriage, but just something to think about if it hasn't ever been brought up to you. Right now the line is drawn at gay marriage in most states. Let's erase that line, but the line is still drawn before polygamy. Polygamists lobby and want their marriages legalized. Then those who feel 18 is way too old as an age of consent want to have the rights that the others have. Some guy loves his dog, I mean LOVES his dog... should that be illegal? I mean we do lots of things to animals now... An extreme example, and some not so extreme examples to illustrate my point. Where do we draw the line? Where is the 'correct' place?

Oh for fuck's sake! Can't one of you put a coherent thought together that doesn't use these stupid, tired, constantly-disproven-yet-for-some-reason-repeated arguments?