Advertisement

Archive for Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Maine repeals gay-marriage law in historic vote

November 4, 2009

Advertisement

Frank Schubert, campaign director for Stand for Marriage Maine, claims victory for Yes on 1 on Tuesday evening in Portland, Maine.

Frank Schubert, campaign director for Stand for Marriage Maine, claims victory for Yes on 1 on Tuesday evening in Portland, Maine.

— Maine voters repealed a state law Tuesday that would have allowed same-sex couples to wed, dealing the gay rights movement a heartbreaking defeat in New England, the corner of the country most supportive of gay marriage.

Gay marriage has now lost in every single state — 31 in all — in which it has been put to a popular vote. Gay-rights activists had hoped to buck that trend in Maine — known for its moderate, independent-minded electorate — and mounted an energetic, well-financed campaign.

With 87 percent of the precincts reporting, gay-marriage foes had 53 percent of the votes.

“The institution of marriage has been preserved in Maine and across the nation,” declared Frank Schubert, chief organizer for the winning side.

Gay-marriage supporters refused to concede, holding out hope that that the tide might turn as the final returns came in.

“We’re here for the long haul and whether it’s just all night and into the morning, or it’s next week or next month or next year, we will be here,” said Jesse Connolly, manager of the pro-gay marriage campaign.

At issue was a law passed by the Maine Legislature last spring that would have legalized same-sex marriage. The law was put on hold after conservatives launched a petition drive to repeal it in a referendum.

The outcome marked the first time voters had rejected a gay-marriage law enacted by a legislature. When Californians put a stop to same-sex marriage a year ago, it was in response to a court ruling, not legislation.

“If we don’t win, then Maine will have its place in infamy because no state has ever voted for homosexual marriage,” said Chuck Schott of Portland, who stood near a polling place in with a pro-repeal campaign sign.

Comments

OutlawJHawk 5 years, 1 month ago

Well, I guess the silent majority have spoken. Tough luck alternative life style poeple...

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 1 month ago

The government should get completely out of the marriage business. Create civil union legislation for everyone-- if you want to get married, go to your church. If your church won't marry you, find or create one that will.

preebo 5 years, 1 month ago

Tom,

I'd be careful. While Republican's won in NJ and VA, they lost a congressional seat that they (R) had held for over 100 years. All I say is be careful when trying to extrapolate future results from two off year elections.

As for Maine, I am disappointed. However, the people of Maine have spoken, no matter how wrong I feel they may be.

Brent Garner 5 years, 1 month ago

And how long before they do in Maine what they did in California and are trying to do in Washington state? What am I talking about? Retaliating against those who supported the repeal of this legislation. In California campaign donors who donated as little as $100 have had their names, addresses, etc., pasted all over pro-gay websites with encouragement for gays to go after these people. The results have been vandalism, property destruction, people fired from their jobs, etc., all of which should be considered a violation of our First Amendment rights. In Washington state those supporting R 71 are seeking the public release of the names of those who signed the petition against R71. Why? No doubt to harrass and attack them as was done in California. So, how long until the same thing starts happening in Maine???

Maxwell Butterfield 5 years, 1 month ago

I guarantee you that if the abolition of slavery had been put to a state by state vote in the 1860's, we would be seeing the exact same thing even up to this day. No question.

Now I'm not trying to equate gay marriage with African-American enslavment, but what they have in common if that they both show a lack of basic human rights in this country. What the gay community needs is another Lincoln to take a stand and say that this is wrong. Sure he'll be heckled by the country, but as the United States mature, he'll be universally hailed as a hero that took a stand in great opposition.

A lot like Lincoln.

jonas_opines 5 years, 1 month ago

No surprise. But it would be interesting to see the differences in opinion on the validity of a popular vote if this concerned something else. . . . like, say, taxes.

Joe Hyde 5 years, 1 month ago

With conventional male/female marriages in the United States at a 50% divorce rate (and climbing), you wonder sometimes why all fifty state legislatures don't do the obvious and just ban marriage altogether.

Oh, I forgot: So many politicians are also lawyers, and for lawyers divorce is a bread-and-butter moneymaker. But it's curious why the legal profession isn't clamoring for the legalization of gay marriage. It'd mean more money for them when even more divorces happen.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 1 month ago

" No doubt to harrass and attack them as was done in California. So, how long until the same thing starts happening in Maine???"

BK-- Gay people are attacked every day by people of your ilk. It should come as no surprise that some gay folks are frustrated enough to lose their cool when bigots like you spend so much of your time and energy to make their lives as difficult as possible.

Chris Golledge 5 years, 1 month ago

Questions:

Why do most people get married in a church?

Isn't there something in the constitution about the government passing no law regarding the practice of religion?

All you proud Americans are just hypocrites. Freedom for all, except those minding their own business who do something you find offensive.

pace 5 years, 1 month ago

The level of hate and prejudice just sickens me. The wingnuts fly low. The conservative direct so much energy and money to the hate and exclude policies. Some day I hope all Americans will have the same rights. The Jim Crow laws fell, the woman's right to vote came. Why do the ones that wave the flag the hardest, soil it.

jonas_opines 5 years, 1 month ago

"GLAD is the new Taliban."

Snrk. You's so funny.

chzypoof1 5 years, 1 month ago

flclhack - I fail to find where gay marriage is a "human right". I'm pretty sure marriage in itself is not a human right. Don't compare slavery to a sexual preference. Homosexuality is not a protected minority, it's a sexual preference. I have no disagreement with civil unions for that choice, but marriage is a christian term, coined for the joining of a man and woman. This isn't bigotry, this is historical fact.

poof

jonas_opines 5 years, 1 month ago

"but marriage is a christian term, coined for the joining of a man and woman. This isn't bigotry, this is historical fact."

So, your basis of position is to protect. . . a word?

What if they just spelled it differently, like Mayrayge? Would you be okay with that?

SettingTheRecordStraight 5 years, 1 month ago

As long as bozo, pace and others continue to believe that this is about hate, prejudice, and phobias and not about protecting traditional marriage and children, the more victories one-man-one-woman advocates will realize.

mr_right_wing 5 years, 1 month ago

How much clearer could it possibly get? Americans at large do not want gay marriage. I repeat, Americans at large are not willing to accept gay marriage. Call it what you want, challenge it in court; either gays don't know how to vote or gay marriage is NOT right in the eyes of most Americans. In my opinion this goes even further than the 'Christian right' it is inclusive of a much larger population of the U.S.A.

jonas_opines 5 years, 1 month ago

"As long as bozo, pace and others continue to believe that this is about hate, prejudice, and phobias and not about protecting traditional marriage and children"

And if one of you could ever articulate what the hell that even means other than just forbidding gay people the right to get married, we might take you seriously when you say it's not about prejudice.

It's funny how on everything else you're a libertarian, but on this issue you believe so strongly in the denial of contract between two agreeable parties, not to mention the will of the majority pushed down on individual people. But no, couldn't have anything to do with prejudice, could it?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 1 month ago

" Americans at large do not want gay marriage."

Then marry someone of the opposite sex, and don't get so pinched when someone else chooses to do otherwise. How hard is that?

Leslie Swearingen 5 years, 1 month ago

I know there are homosexuals, both male and female, but in my mind I cannot believe that such people actually exist. I have no idea why anyone would do such a thing. You could argue about this subject forever. It is all too easy for me to imagine the response to this, but it is the truth. Only by both sides speaking the truth can a middle ground be reached.

supertrampofkansas 5 years, 1 month ago

chzypoof1: “but marriage is a christian term, coined for the joining of a man and woman. This isn't bigotry, this is historical fact.”

From wiki: The modern English word "marriage" derives from Middle English mariage, which first appears in 1250-1300 C.E. This in turn is derived from Old French marier (to marry) and ultimately Latin marītāre (to marry) and marītus (of marriage.

If marriage is a christian term, how does it exist before christianity?

preebo 5 years, 1 month ago

75x55,

Anyone CAN throw an R next to their name, I believe people of your ilk refer to them as RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) however, the "conservative" candidate lost the election giving the Democratic candidate the seat for the first time in over 100 years.

As far as self-delusion? I would surmise that the one who believes that two off-year election victories are paramount to a Republican Revolution a la 1994 suffers from the delusion - IMHO, of course.

In the interest of dealing with the actual issue, Maine has shown that a groups rights, in this case homosexuals, are not equal to that of others. I for one am not particularly in favor of gay marriage, however, it is disappointing to see the rights of others trampled on, particularly in this country.

Chris Golledge 5 years, 1 month ago

Scary post of the day:

"...marriage is a christian term..."

So... Jews, Hindus, Muslims, etc. are not really married?

Satirical 5 years, 1 month ago

Okay, let’s go over some basic facts before we have a discussion:

(1) Marriage is a civil institution, governed by the states, and while marriage was historically an Ecclesiastical institution and marriage are still performed by religious clergy, only the government and society can decide who can marry.

(2) This issue isn’t about love, it is about society and the government recognizing and protections to certain relationships.

(3) The government is not required to recognize all relationships.

(4) The “rights” of gays and lesbians aren’t being trampeled on.

a. It isn’t a right until the government recognizes it.

b. The opposite would be saying the “rights” of those who don’t want to recognize and give benefits same-sex marriage are being trampled on.

(5) The “right” to polygamy, group marriage, and incestuous marriage (all between consenting adults) also isn’t recognized.

(6) One cannot make a non-arbitrary distinction between advocating for same-sex marriage rights, and advocating for rights of polygamists, etc.

(7) Changing the definition of marriage may not affect YOU, but can impact society.

(8) Opponents of same-sex marriage don't hate gays and lesbians.

SettingTheRecordStraight 5 years, 1 month ago

Sorry, jonas, but a government endorsement of traditional marriage is absolutely necessary for the health of a modern society. Among other things, one-man-one-woman marriage is foundational to child birthing and healthy child rearing. And while we cannot guarantee that every child will be born into a family with a stable, married mother and father, the concept of one mom and one dad cannot even be realized in homosexual and/or polygamist relationships.

And to this notion that supporters of traditional marriage are somehow bigoted or prejudiced, I don't know if any rational person that wants to make homosexual behavior illegal. We just don't want to radically redefine the definition of marriage. Traditional marriage has been the standard for millenia, and it is a trans-racial and trans-cultural institution worth protecting, not abrogating.

Mel Briscoe 5 years, 1 month ago

i guess in a way i can understand why gay folks want to be legally married-- that way they are entitled to benefits that marriage brings.

if it weren't for that, though, i'd think they were crazy for pressing the issue so hard. i'm straight and i think that the institution of marriage is archaic and unneccessary in these "modern times". i wish i could hand over my "right" to get married to some gay couple because i sure in the hell ain't gonna be needing it.

Mel Briscoe 5 years, 1 month ago

cg22165, yep-- that is slightly disturbing and idiotic at the same time, isn't it?

jonas_opines 5 years, 1 month ago

Don't think you can truly say that Number 8 is a basic fact, Satirical. You should change the wording slightly.

  1. Not all opponents of same-sex marriage hate gays and lesbians.

Your points.

  1. No issue.

  2. If you run a word search, you'll find that you are the first person to actually say anything about love. The question largely brought up is whether it's appropriate for, as you say, the government to recognize and grant protection to certain relationships. Which is a matter of opinion.

  3. No, but it is a glaring inconsistency in the philosophy of personal responsability and the protection of personal contracts.

  4. Entirely dependent on arbitrary and personal opinions on rights and infractions against them.

a. True enough from my perspective, but again, quite an inconsistency with the philosophy of personal responsability and choice.

b. Who are these people who would be forced to give rights and benefits? On the surface, that seems like absurdist logic, so can you clarify?

  1. True enough.

  2. Sure you can. The others don't have the lobbying power to be heard and considered on the national stage. But to be honest, the only problem I have with those others stems from the special priveleges conferred by the government to marriage. That's why I tend to believe the solution Agno mentions is the most appropriate.

  3. Virtually anything can and does impact society. If that's our driving concern it's practically an open door to total government control. Save us from ourselves.

sfjayhawk 5 years, 1 month ago

Why is it that homophobes are so cowardly that they cant just say how they feel? Instead they hide behind straw man arguments like 'same sex marriage and polygamy are the same" or 'same sex marriage will impact society". Same way most bigots behave. Why not just man up and admit that this topic scares the heck out of you and you find homosexual relationships repugnant? Try the truth for a change.

somedude20 5 years, 1 month ago

Irish (Irish Swearingen) says… "I know there are homosexuals, both male and female, but in my mind I cannot believe that such people actually exist. I have no idea why anyone would do such a thing."

People could say the same thing about mixing races. I can't believe two people of different colour would do that. I can't believe that such people actually exist and have no idea why anyone would do such a thing....you are unbelievable!!!!

jonas_opines 5 years, 1 month ago

"Sorry, jonas, but a government endorsement of traditional marriage is absolutely necessary for the health of a modern society."

So, government intervention when you believe it is appropriate. You should just admit that when it comes to personal responsability and personal choice, you're just another relativist.

"Among other things, one-man-one-woman marriage is foundational to child birthing and healthy child rearing. And while we cannot guarantee that every child will be born into a family with a stable, married mother and father, the concept of one mom and one dad cannot even be realized in homosexual and/or polygamist relationships."

So, since you can't make progress on real issues confronting society and family, it's acceptable to pretend progress by falling on the small minority, highly stigmatized population. Bully for you.

Relativist.

jonas_opines 5 years, 1 month ago

We have to protect the chiiiilllllldddrennn.

Wasn't that how you put it on the beverage tax thread, 75X55?

Mel Briscoe 5 years, 1 month ago

woah. there are some true bigots up in here... i guess its not as cool as it was, maybe 40 years ago to say that homosexuality is an abomination and sin and whatnot so, like sfjayhawk so aptly put it, people hide behind wordage. semantics. a bigot is a bigot is a bigot. same as that old fart who wouldn't marry the interracial couple a couple of weeks ago but said he "wasn't racist" and had "piles of black friends". how is this any different.

no wonder most of the country thinks of kansas as backwoods. judging by the attitudes of alot of people who have posted in here, it looks like we ARE.

Mel Briscoe 5 years, 1 month ago

blessed, every now and then in a thread i will see a post of your's that is humorous or that makes me grin a bit and i think "that blessed isn't so bad..." and then i read something like that last post of yours. terrible.

9070811 5 years, 1 month ago

1.) If you don't believe in marriage between the same sexes, don't get one. Simple as that.

2.) Divorce ruins the sanctity of marriage. As of 2008, just over 50% of marriages end in divorce.

3.) Yes, homosexuals do deserve the right to civil unions. Under government marriages, spouses would receive hospital benefits, social security benefits, jointly filed taxes, among other benefits allotted to opposite sex couples.

This should NOT be a citizens vote. I agree that if slavery had been put to vote, it most certainly would have stayed intact.

If you're against same sex marriage, unions, whatever the state wants to call it, move to a different state. We already live in a lunchable country. There are many areas in which same sex marriage/unions/whatever wouldn't be tolerated. You could be surrounded with people who think just like you.

That said, same sex marriage/union/whatever shouldn't be a state issue.

Should women still be allowed to vote?
Is voting really a "right" or is it just a privilege of living in a democratic republic? Should people of color still be whipped and forced to scrub your floors and reap the harvest? It freedom really a right when someone can't fight back when being taken forcibly from the homeland?

A union between a couple should be just that, a union. That is governmentally speaking. A marriage should be a church term.
"We were married under our Episcopalian faith." "We applied and were jointly unionized by the Government."

Why does it matter if same sex couples get married? Seriously? Is it too hard for us religious folk to raise our children in our own belief systems to ensure they understand their God given lives? Without the aid of the government. Is it too difficult to say "This is allowed because of the government we have. This government also allows us to practice our religion. We don't have to agree with others' ways of life, but because of our government given rights, we need to respect the rights of others. We do not have to agree, instead we can pray for them."

pace 5 years, 1 month ago

yes Pace does think hate and prejudice is the basis for denying the state of marriage to people who want to be married. I am sick of how people have to validate their own lives by crowd control. It is such a mean view that your marriage is no good or obsolete because someone has a different type of partner or a different relationship with the person they love. My husband makes me coffee rather than I make coffee for him. Does that invalidate and threaten the real meaning of woman/man love for you. Oh I bet on some level it does. Oh oh it different, I bet she is a witch. Don't build your church or marriage on the bones of other people lifes.

supertrampofkansas 5 years, 1 month ago

Satirical: (6) One cannot make a non-arbitrary distinction between advocating for same-sex marriage rights, and advocating for rights of polygamists, etc.

A non-arbitrary distinction? And exactly what is this satirical? What qualifies as non-arbitrary? The use of the word 'rights' is also unnecessary here.

How about the number 2 Satirical. Is this what you mean by non-arbitrary?

kmat 5 years, 1 month ago

Most of you are just homophobes. Saying you're not is just like the bigot saying he's got some black friends too.

My husband and I got married so I could be on his health insurance and so we could have legal rights over each other in case of serious illness. We lived together for years and had no big desire to be married. We are a very close couple (more than most people we've ever met), but to us marriage was just a word. We already had a very deeply committed relationship. We got married at the court house and required that there was no talk of god or any religious cr*p because we are both non-religious (I want nothing to do with any religious ceremony, especially something christian). We don't ever want kids. So, according to many of you, I shouldn't have had the right to get married. It's all about protecting the sanctity of marriage and children, correct? Are you homophobes going to also work to make marriage illegal for people like my husband and I? We only did it for the benefit of me getting needed health insurance when I was unemployed and so we could make health decisions, if needed, for each other.

What you don't seem to be able to get through your bigoted heads is that it shouldn't be any of your business. Why don't you worry about your own marriages and that fact that the majority of hetero marriages (especially in very religious areas like the south) end in divorce? You think homosexuality is perverse (sap said that). Who are you people to judge what's perverse?

So please answer if I should have the right to be married. If your answer is yes, is it only because of our sexes? Please also explain why you aren't actively working to end divorce amoungst your fellow hypocritical christians.

tbaker 5 years, 1 month ago

I wonder how much of this controversy is based entirely on the word "marriage?" I don't think people oppose the legal union of two homosexuals as much as they oppose the use of the term "marriage" to describe it.

I believe heterosexual people feel the term used to describe their traditional "marriage" is being diminished when it is used to describe the union of gay people. I think this is motivated more by "We were here first" than it is the result of some form of mass homophobia.

I believe the G&L community should pick a new word and try again. As long as what they want doesn't deprive anyone of anything, they'll get what they want: equal status. Whats wrong with civil union? or life partner? or BFFL?

You never know....it could be a massive government conspiracy designed to prevent more people from enjoying the married-filing-jointly status, and depriving the US treasury of all that tax revenue.

Mel Briscoe 5 years, 1 month ago

so would you guys have one of those bumper stickers that shows a little cut-out looking symbol of a man + one for a woman = marriage on your vehicles? i'm thinking some of you already sport one.

SettingTheRecordStraight 5 years, 1 month ago

When defenders of traditional marriage are called bigots and homophobes, and when we're described as hateful, ignorant and prejudiced, we wear those terms like badges of honor. You may think you're insulting us, but you're accusations are actually high compliments.

bad_dog 5 years, 1 month ago

"and the left seems more discontent than ever–the whining is incessant–constant–perpetual–loud–-everywhere from the lefties. Is it me or does anyone else notice this?"

That's really rich given the source is the Czar of Whiners.

Careful, you'll overload your exhaust w/ multi-syllable adjectives.

Mel Briscoe 5 years, 1 month ago

setting, well since you enjoy those badges you've earned so much, here's another: idiot.

woooooow--- look how shiny!!!

Mel Briscoe 5 years, 1 month ago

co-sign mr. larrynative 100%. thumbs up

Chris Golledge 5 years, 1 month ago

Satirical (Anonymous) says…

Okay, let’s go over some basic facts before we have a discussion:

(1) Marriage is a civil institution, governed by the states, and while marriage was historically an Ecclesiastical institution and marriage are still performed by religious clergy, only the government and society can decide who can marry.

OK, let me repeat the question, why is it that most people get married by clergy and/or at a church? Are you saying that it is for historical reasons only? Shall we take a poll and see how many people say that no spiritual aspect of their marriage exists?

(2) This issue isn’t about love, it is about society and the government recognizing and protections to certain relationships.

So, shall we take another poll and see how many people say that love has nothing to do with their marriage?

These propositions are nothing more than playing with semantics to circumvent the hypocrisy. Yeah, they are practiced by the majority; what's your point?

If you skip over to the Cal Thomas rant, you'll find some of the same people who find offense with the current extent of government powers are the same ones here who think the government should decide which consenting adults are allowed to marry and which aren't.

Elrond, you nailed it.

monkey_c 5 years, 1 month ago

“I don't know if any rational person that wants to make homosexual behavior illegal.” I want to make homosexual behavior in public illegal. Does that count? For the record I would also make Fred Phelp’s sign depicting homosexual acts illegal. Cause I don’t want to see it, real or illustrated.

I find homosexual relationships repugnant… there I said it. Does that make me the bravest of the bigots?

“I know there are homosexuals, both male and female, but in my mind I cannot believe that such people actually exist. I have no idea why anyone would do such a thing.” Hmm, I wish I could bury my head as deeply in the sand as you. Try to shield a young child from being exposed to homosexual acts on television and you will see that not only does it exist, it is in our faces.

Common Law Partnership is what it should be called and it should allow for,” (partners) receive hospital benefits, social security benefits, jointly filed taxes, among other benefits allotted to opposite sex couples

So, I’ve already declared myself to be a bigot in the context of this discussion. Persoanlly, I do not care who gets married as I do think it is a formal “government” designation and I could care less. I also do not care what anyone does in their homes as long as no one (or thing) is getting hurt.
All I want is for me to mind my own business and you to mind yours, but the thing is that I raise kids and some things strike kids as odd and unnattural. Then I, not the offender, has to explain to a young child why that dude has his toungue down that other dudes throat. I shouldn’t have to do that.
“Mommy, why is that man sucking on that woman’s face?” “Well, dear when a man loves a woman, they suck face then they have a baby.” “Mommy, why is that man sucking that other man’s face?” “Uh, um, um, I dunno. Maybe he’s choking.” Yes, and when I go past Fred’s offensive sign I have had to tell young children that one fellow is helping the other fellow pick something up.
For the record I have never put a homosexual person in an uncomfortable position. And the term Homophobe is not accurate. I am not afraid, I am annoyed. The term should be homovexo.

Mel Briscoe 5 years, 1 month ago

oh, and larrynative, i noticed no one answered the little question you posed about who would they leave their children w/, couple A or B.

my mom worked for the state for 2 decades and she said she can remember back in the late 70s, early 80s a rumor going around about a pastor in topeka who was lovers w/ one of his male assistants. that pastor was fred phelps and this was long before he started his anti-gay protests. now i understand that a rumor is just that-- doesn't mean it is true or not-- but its funny that his reputation preceeded him many years before he became the most infamous homophobe in this country.

and it is widely known that hitler was, in fact, part jewish. also j. edgar hoover was a cross dresser who was of partial black heritage and who did he so often target? gay folks and african-americans.

UfoPilot 5 years, 1 month ago

Here's what the constitution says about religion.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion,

Mel Briscoe 5 years, 1 month ago

blessed: "Perverted - relating to or practicing sexual activities considered unusual or unacceptable."

okay, can you get any more subjective or interpretive than THAT?! c'mon now... that can mean any damn thing. if you're a quaker you're not supposed to have anything but the most vanilla of sex-- penis/vagina intercouse-- and you only do that when you are trying to conceive. so if your wife is 55 and has passed menopause, there is no possibility she can conceive, so no more cootchie for y'all.

i don't want to see you copulating, dude, nor do i want to see anyone else doing something nasty with you... that mess is unacceptable to ME. so think about that the next time you decide to get your little freak on... what's acceptable to you isn't going to be for everyone else.

Mel Briscoe 5 years, 1 month ago

consumer, dude, you're stark raving?... wow, now THAT's hot! ;)

Satirical 5 years, 1 month ago

Jonas_opines… “Don't think you can truly say that Number 8 is a basic fact, Satirical. You should change the wording slightly. 8. Not all opponents of same-sex marriage hate gays and lesbians.”

Agreed and amended. Thank you for the correction.

“2. If you run a word search, you'll find that you are the first person to actually say anything about love.” – jonas_opines

I never said my statements were in response to what anyone previously posted. So you don't disagree with this statement?

“3. No, but it is a glaring inconsistency in the philosophy of personal responsability and the protection of personal contracts.” – jonas_opines

Please elaborate on how the government not recognizing all relationships is inconsistent with the philosophy of personal responsibility.

In re: to personal contracts. Marriage is both a contract and a status. It is both a personal and a social contract. If it were purely personal, then government recognition wouldn’t even be discussed. There are many rights which marriage convey between spouses which same-sex couples may enter into. The really the only thing lacking is the social recognition aspect. And for society to recognize, it must approve. Therefore, I don’t see how not recognizing a marriage alters any personal contract. Same-sex couples are free to engage in a relationship with each other.

“4. Entirely dependent on arbitrary and personal opinions on rights and infractions against them.” – jonas_opines

No, it is dependent on how you define a right. A right can be defined as a moral or legal claim, but an unrecognized really isn’t a right. I agree there are many personal opinions on, and people advocating for, who should have what rights. But it is incorrect to say X’s rights on being trampled on when they have none. Same-sex marriage was never a right in Maine, therefore there is nothing on which to be trampled.

“a. True enough from my perspective, but again, quite an inconsistency with the philosophy of personal responsability and choice.” – jonas_opines

Explain how something cannot be right until it is recognized is inconsistent with the philosophy of personal responsibility and choice.

“b. Who are these people who would be forced to give rights and benefits? On the surface, that seems like absurdist logic, so can you clarify?” – jonas_opines

Sure. Rights without correlative obligations are not rights. The correlative obligation with marriage is that society and government recognizing the relationship and often gives benefits thereto.

Satirical 5 years, 1 month ago

jonas_opines....

Continued

“6. Sure you can.” – jonas_opines

Not if you are being intellectually honest. Any non-arbitrary argument one makes advocating for same-sex marriage can be used to advocate for polygamy, and group marriage. Any non-arbitrary arguments opposing polygamy, etc. can be used against same-sex marriage.

“7. Virtually anything can and does impact society. If that's our driving concern it's practically an open door to total government control. Save us from ourselves.” – jonas_opines

You are responding to the argument you think I implied, not the statement I actually made. Some things impact society more than others. Changing the fundamental make-up of the family which is the most basic and important association on this planet will surely have ramifications. Legalizing same-sex marriage may have a positive or a negative impact on society.

Many who oppose same-sex marriage believe it will have the latter effect. The reason I used this as a basic fact to start off, is because there are many who claim everyone who opposes same-sex marriage wants to force their religions values on others. However, the real debate isn’t about religion, it is about how this affects our society.

denak 5 years, 1 month ago

For those who think same sex marriages will hurt children. Here are some things to think about:

As things stand now, a gay person can get married in Massachussets, have a child with his or her partner, and then take off abandoning his former spouse and their minor child. If he moves to a state that doesn't recognize same sex marriage, he can not be forced to pay alimony or child support for that child. He can then move to Vermont, marry again, adopt with his or her spouse again, abandon them again. If a straight person did this they would be charged with bigamy, failure to pay child support, etc. but as the laws stand now, a homosexual person could do this, and there would be no legal consequences to his actions. Secondly, same sex marriage would confer on both parents the legal right to take care of his or her children. As much as some people would like to think otherwise, a good percentage of same sex couples have children either through a previous relationship, adoption or in-vitro. As things stand now, Parent A could be the biological or legal parent of a child but Parent B has been with Parent A and the child since the beginning. If Parent A leaves Parent B seven years into that child's life, Parent A could move to another state and cut off all contact with Parent B. Now, ignore the fact that both parties are gay. If Parent A&B were straight, would you say that was a healthy thing to do? Would you say that the child would be better off not knowing the second parent even though Parent B had raise the child since birth. How is denying this child the love of his or her other parent healthy and good for the child??? Parent B is a fit, healthy loving parent for the child but instead of looking at what is in the best interest of the child, the parent is being judge solely on his or her orientation. And of course, there is the matter of custody upon death. Tell me how it is better for a child to go live with an aunt or uncle that, they may or may not know, and not the parent that they have lived with their whole life?? Do you seriously think that is not going to scar that child? To lose both parents in a span of less than a few months. I have been a foster parent for almost 7 years, I can guarentee you that what you are going to end up with is a very angry and very confused child. The loss issues that the child is going to have to deal with will haunt that child for years. Do you really think that child is going to believe that "family is forever" when you want to rip that child from the only family he or she has ever known for no other reason that Parent B is not legally his or her parent. Not because Parent B doesn't want to be his or her parent but because you don't want Parent B to be.

Dena

EXks 5 years, 1 month ago

Hey, if the "sanctity” of "traditional" marriage is soooo important to western civilization, why doesn't the church of the Magical Underwear and the church of Grown Men in Pretty Red Robes insist on a constitutional amendment to OUTLAW d-i-v-o-r-c-e?????

Satirical 5 years, 1 month ago

Cg22165… “OK, let me repeat the question, why is it that most people get married by clergy and/or at a church?” - Cg22165

Because they choose to.

“Are you saying that it is for historical reasons only?” - Cg22165

No.

“Shall we take a poll and see how many people say that no spiritual aspect of their marriage exists?” - Cg22165

I am not denying that many people feel there is both a civil and spiritual aspect to marriage. But one can have a spiritual marriage that isn’t recognized by the state and vice versa. If some churches choose to “marry” same-sex couples, no one can stop them. But it will not be called nor receive the benefits of marriage as defined by the State. If someone claims their church does not recognize divorce, that doesn’t impact whether the courts will grant a divorce. Why? Because as defined by the State, it is solely a civil institution. The fact that there are some religious ceremonies that coincide doesn't alter this truth.

“So, shall we take another poll and see how many people say that love has nothing to do with their marriage?” - Cg22165

I never said love has nothing to do with marriage. Your emotions for what you think I am advocating or opposing is impairing your reading comprehension. My point number 2 is in response to many same-sex marriage advocates who argue that the government shouldn’t decide who they can love. Love is not a perquisite for the State granting a marriage license. Nor is marriage required before one can love. In other words, “What’s love got to do with it?”

“These propositions are nothing more than playing with semantics to circumvent the hypocrisy. Yeah, they are practiced by the majority; what's your point?” - Cg22165

Yes, facts are stubborn things. It you want to rant and rave about how everyone is a bigot and a hypocrite if they don’t think or believe the same things you think and believe, then you are barking up the wrong tree. Make or counter an argument if you want to be taken seriously.

“Tyranny of the majority” is the cry whenever the minority loses an election.

kmat 5 years, 1 month ago

Mel - I love your comments!!

Dena - spot on!

Sap - perversion is subjective. What I think is perverse, you may not and vice versa. You can't deny equal rights to someone based on your subjective idea of what's perverse. That's discrimination and that's what this whole issue is about.

None of the homophobes will answer my question about whether my husband and I should have had the right to marry based on why we married, because we will not have children (by choice) and hey, what we do in the privacy of our home may be perverse to you. According to your logic, my marriage shouldn't be allowed. Come on, no one with enough guts to admit that your logic for allowing marriages is flawed?????

Chris Golledge 5 years, 1 month ago

Satirical (Anonymous) says… ... Cg22165… “OK, let me repeat the question, why is it that most people get married by clergy and/or at a church?” - Cg22165

Because they choose to. ...

You haven't answered the question.

Chris Golledge 5 years, 1 month ago

"I am not denying that many people feel there is both a civil and spiritual aspect to marriage. But one can have a spiritual marriage that isn’t recognized by the state and vice versa."

OK, let's take another poll and ask people how they would feel if the state refused to recognise their marriage.

supertrampofkansas 5 years, 1 month ago

Satirical

Still waiting to hear what you mean by non-abitrary.

Maybe you can define in terms of heterosexual vs homosexual. What is the non-arbitrary distinction here?

Mel Briscoe 5 years, 1 month ago

LMAO @ larrynat! oh my goodness! hahahahaha! :D

Chris Golledge 5 years, 1 month ago

Satirical,

"This issue isn’t about love, it is about society and the government recognizing and protections to certain relationships."

"I never said love has nothing to do with marriage."

This issue is marriage. Please connect the dots in your own statements.

Mel Briscoe 5 years, 1 month ago

multi multi multi... tsk tsk... next you're going to make some outrageous comment like humans actually evolving from monkeys!

Mel Briscoe 5 years, 1 month ago

blessed, are you married or have you ever been married? so how do i know that you're straight-- how do i know that your wife is/was straight? how can i be sure of these things? did the state require that you get a subscription to penthouse and she get one to playgirl before you got married?

you are aware that there have been many cases where two gay folks of the opposite genders marry just to "pass" as a traditional married couple... there have even been famous people who have done such things and many times they have even produced a child or two from these psuedo love affairs. but, for all intensive reasons, they LOOKED the parts they were trying so hard to portray.

you speak absolutes when in fact, there are so many gray areas here (and in damn near every other aspect of life) that what you're doing is an effort in futility.

Satirical 5 years, 1 month ago

Cg22165… “You haven't answered the question.”

How am I suppose to know the thoughts and motivations of “most people?"

Even if I did, why would it matter. If you have a point try to actually make it, rather than dancing around the issue with question about what people think and feel.

“OK, let's take another poll and ask people how they would feel if the state refused to recognise their marriage.” – cg22165

You do that… Once you are done will you then explain why it is relevant to our discussion and specifically how it counters my statement that marriage is a civil institution? I don’t write the laws. It is what it is. The state can change the legal age to be married, and alter the benefits thereto. Whether people like it or not doesn't counter the argument that the state has that power.

“This issue is marriage. Please connect the dots in your own statements.” – cg22165

Correct, the issue is marriage, not love…..that is what I said. So why do you think you are countering my statement when you are actually agreeing with it?

Satirical 5 years, 1 month ago

Supertrampofkansas… “Still waiting to hear what you mean by non-abitrary.”

I am still waiting on what you mean by “waiting….” Get a dictionary and look the word up.

See if this helps; this is what I wrote to jonas_opines: “Any non-arbitrary argument one makes advocating for same-sex marriage can be used to advocate for polygamy, and group marriage. Any non-arbitrary arguments opposing polygamy, etc. can be used against same-sex marriage.”

kmat 5 years, 1 month ago

BlessedSap (Anonymous) says…

Kmat

Your reason for marriage is sad but you have every legal right to do it, obviously


You didn't answer the question and all the other homophobes won't answer it. I asked, based on the flawed logic you guys have proposed for getting married, should my marriage be allowed. I didn't ask if it was legal now. I asked based on your flawed logic if it should be allowed.

I have a great relationship and nothing sad about it. We didn't need a piece of paper to express our love. We did need to protect each other from religious nutball inlaws that wouldn't have respected our rights when it comes to medical treatments and needed insurance. We had been together a lot longer than most marriages last when we got hitched and are still happily married. Been together for almost 20 years. The majority of religious people that get married don't last that long.

What's sad is your perspective of people's rights.

Mel Briscoe 5 years, 1 month ago

sure. if you want to marry tom shewmon go for it. or rush limbaugh or whomever.

when people enter the legal contract known as marriage, they not only reap some benefits but they, in turn, set themselves up for alot of negative legalities as well-- eg., divorce, alimony, your wifey getting half of what you worked hard all of your life for, custody battles over not only the kids but the pets, the beach house and whatever... you act as if marriage is such a bed of flowers and that is such an exclusive club that you need to nail a "he-man homo haters" sign on the door. guess what? not all gay folks want to get married and for that matter, not all straight people do (myself included!).

you asked, "does one have to be gay to enter a same sex union?" and i asked, "does one have to be straight to enter into an opposite sex union?"

Satirical 5 years, 1 month ago

Cg22165…

I have a question for you:

Do you support the right to polygamy, group marriage, and incestuous marriage (all between consenting adults), or are you a bigot and hypocrite?

Mel Briscoe 5 years, 1 month ago

its folks like this who give christianity a really bad name and have lent to the decline of membership in churches all over the united states. i am not anti-christianity at all... i am a universalist and i find alot of wisdom in the bible, old and new testaments both. but this close-mindedness, all in the name of god is not only polarizing and repellent, it is also repulsive and it makes me feel really sad that most of the proud homophobes in this thread profess the name of jesus christ as their guide, teacher and savior.

Satirical 5 years, 1 month ago

Kmat…

Just to clarify, you also support polygamy, group marriage and incestuous marriage?

Satirical 5 years, 1 month ago

Honeychild…

Are you under the mistaken belief that everyone who doesn’t support same-sex marriage is a homophobe?

It seems to me that when liberals don’t know how to use logic to win an argument they resort to name calling, such as “racist” or “bigot” or “homophobe.” This tactic is used to portray their opponents as evil, which leads them to not rationally consider whether their side is in fact correct. Not trying to put words in your mouth, just want to clarify your position.

Mel Briscoe 5 years, 1 month ago

sat, dude, was i talking about YOU? did i mention anything in particular that you wrote? you must have seen yourself in that last post of mine.

somedude20 5 years, 1 month ago

"six in ten Maine voters had tallied in favor of allowing state-licensed nonprofits to distribute pot to approved patients" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/04/maine-voters-first-to-lic_n_344812.html

So no to same sex marriage but yes to the pot? What was their catch phrase... toke your gay away? Take a toke but blow away the puffs?

Mel Briscoe 5 years, 1 month ago

yep, blessed, marriage IS complicated and should never be entered into w/out much thought and consideration by both parties.

Satirical 5 years, 1 month ago

Honeychild… “sat, dude, was i talking about YOU?”

I didn’t say you were. I simply asked a question about your beliefs.


“did i mention anything in particular that you wrote?” - honeychild

I didn’t say you did. Again, just asking a question. (Someone is a little defensive)


“you must have seen yourself in that last post of mine.” - honeychild

Aka, you want to dodge my question but instead of answering my question you choose to put me down. Guess you shouldn’t be the one throwing the first stone regarding people professing to be Christian but not acting like it.

Mel Briscoe 5 years, 1 month ago

sat, fair enough... i didn't answer your question... here goes:

sat asked: "Are you under the mistaken belief that everyone who doesn’t support same-sex marriage is a homophobe?"

nope. never said that. but some folks up in here who are opposed to gay marriage are also quite vocal about not being too terribly fond of gay folks period. like i said, if, for whatever reason, you saw yourself in that post of mine then so be it. if you didn't, ditto. i wasn't aiming that at you in particular but if the proverbial footwear fits....

mr_right_wing 5 years, 1 month ago

What a nice glimmer of hope for this country yesterday.

Legalizing 'gay marriage' failed, and a director of a Planned Parenthood in Texas resigned after actually seeing an ultrasound of an abortion. Morals do still exist in the U.S.A!

We need more days like these!

Mel Briscoe 5 years, 1 month ago

blessed, are you sure mr. right wing isn't one of the spawn you spoke of?

kmat 5 years, 1 month ago

Satirical (Anonymous) says…

Kmat…

Just to clarify, you also support polygamy, group marriage and incestuous marriage?


the issue at hand is about TWO consenting adults. You want to turn the debate into something much different because you don't have a valid arguement for why two consenting gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry. I'm not debating polygamy or group marriage. Incest is a whole different issue (medical reasons if a child was produced) and no, it shouldn't be allowed.

Satirical 5 years, 1 month ago

honeychild…

Thank you for the clarification

Also, who here was “quite vocal about not being too terribly fond of gay folks period?”

ksdivakat 5 years, 1 month ago

ComradeRedRooster.....undoubtdely the smartest poster on this forum!

Satirical 5 years, 1 month ago

Kmat… “the issue at hand is about TWO consenting adults.”

No, the issue is about rights and the arguments for granting them. What gives you the right to draw the line at two consenting adults? But somehow others don't have the right to draw the line at two consenting adults of opposite gender? The distinction between 2 and 3 is much more arbitrary that than of male and female.

You support limiting marriage to two individuals for the same reasons others support limiting marriage to those of opposite gender. Everyone wants to draw lines to include some but exclude others. The difference is, those advocating for traditional marriage understand this, while many who advocate same-sex marriage are hypocrites. Lines have to be draw to define anything.

“I'm not debating polygamy or group marriage.” - kmat

I didn’t ask you to debate it, I asked if you supported it. Apparently you do not, which makes you a bigot and a hypocrite.

“Incest is a whole different issue (medical reasons if a child was produced) and no, it shouldn't be allowed.” - kmat

Wait, I thought children didn’t have anything to do with marriage…because if offspring has anything to do with marriage, then I hate to tell you that same-sex marriage also has problems in that area.

kmat 5 years, 1 month ago

you homophobes just don't get it. Get off the more than two people thing and incest. We are talking about TWO consenting, non-related adults of the same sex. If in the future people are fighting for rights to marry animals, their siblings or a group of people, then it can be debated. Right now, that is not the topic at hand and there is no legislation about it. Can you manage to stay on topic. NO, you can't because you have no valid arguements. I'm starting to think you're closeted gays like Rev. Haggert and so many other outspoken, conservative homophobes.

Besides your conservative christian beliefs, give a reason why TWO consenting, non-related adults shouldn't be allowed to enter into a contract saying that they want to share financial, medical and emotional responsibility for each other? I would love to debate if you can have a logical debate. The problem is you refuse to use logic. No more stupid comments about non-related issues. Debate the issue or get out of here.

remember_username 5 years, 1 month ago

Is there a non-religious justification in requiring marriage be between a man and a woman? I'm not referring to current laws which insist upon the man/woman requirement. I was just trying to determine if there was a secular rational, and I couldn't think of one. The same with polygamy and group marriages. Again I could think of no secular reason why those should be illegal. Anybody got an answer?

I'd like to think that those siting a religious belief that marriage should be male/female are not necessarily homophobes. It is simply a tenet of their religion. Accusing everybody that believes such of bigotry or homophobia is not necessary correct.

Satirical 5 years, 1 month ago

kmat…

Would you allow two people with asthma to get married. Medical issues and all?

What about two south-paws? Everyone knows they are backwards. Wouldn't want anymore of them.

Satirical 5 years, 1 month ago

kmat… “Debate the issue or get out of here.”

I didn’t know you were the self anointed forum moderator. I apologize for using logic and reason to counter your omnipotence. I mistakenly wanted to talk about the broader issue of rights…please forgive me your majesty.

Clearly rights have nothing to do with same-sex marriage. You are correct that we should only advocate for rights for groups with the most political and Hollywood support, rather than groups with less political support like polygamist. What was I thinking?

kmat 5 years, 1 month ago

You are correct remember_username. BUT, many of these posters have proven themselves to not be speaking in terms of religious belief in the past and on this current thread. For example, not wanting their kids to see gay people kiss in public and having to explain it to them (which is stupid anyways because there's no law banning that from happening whether they're married or not). Unfortunately, there are a lot of homophobes on here, but not all. The homophobes are the idiots trying to change the debate to include incest, etc.... because they have no logical response to the issue at hand. We can debate religion and the separation of church and state and people's rights. That's not what they're doing because they are opposed to gay marriage for reasons other than religion and just don't want to admit they're homophobic. I'd love to have a REAL debate about the issue.

remember_username 5 years, 1 month ago

Satircal - I hesitate to continue broadening the issue but there are other rationale beyond genetics for the banning of incestuous relationships, which do not apply in the other marriage examples given.

Satirical 5 years, 1 month ago

BlessedSap… “insidious marriage”

That is redundant ; )

kmat 5 years, 1 month ago

Satirical (Anonymous) says…

kmat…

Would you allow two people with asthma to get married. Medical issues and all?

What about two south-paws? Everyone knows they are backwards. Wouldn't want anymore of them.


See, this is what I mean. You can't have a logical debate about the issue at hand. You are just ridiculous. The topic is gay marriage. Can you read? If so, go back and reread the article that is ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE. It's easier to debate with a toddler than deal with you. Here's something for you to read and see if you can then act like a rational adult and discuss the topic at hand.

monkey_c 5 years, 1 month ago

KMAT – To answer your question there is nothing wrong with your motivations for your marriage, nothing wrong with allowing you to marry. Man + Woman = okay to wed. And I respect your view that you married to protect your roles with one another from outside meddling family members who have more respect for your love and commitment just because you went to the courthouse and ask for government permission, and not that you or your partner needed the piece of paper. Here’s the thing. I have no problem with gay people being gay. I don’t believe they should be shamed into hiding either. I do, however, think society should not present it as a perfectly “normal” option. Not everyone needs to be the same, but we should have norms.
It has been posed in California Public Schools, “How do you know you are not gay if you haven’t tried it?” This is not an acceptable view. If you are, then fine. No one should hurt or discriminate against you. If you are not, you should not be forced to view it as equally “normal” lifestyle choice. Media has been presenting gays in a context of being absolutely 100% normal. As if 20% of all the people I know should be gay.

Satirical 5 years, 1 month ago

Remember_username “Is there a non-religious justification in requiring marriage be between a man and a woman? “

Yes. Some believe there are negative social aspects to broadening the definition of marriage.

“....there are other rationale beyond genetics for the banning of incestuous relationships, which do not apply in the other marriage examples given” – remember_username

Yes, I am aware there are non-genetic arguments. Which ones were you thinking of? Also, simply because there are arguments doesn’t mean they are sufficient reasons to deny the right to marry.

ksdivakat 5 years, 1 month ago

Because it needs posted again: ComradeRedRooster (Anonymous) says…

This is a sensitive issue for many on this discussion page. To what purpose does calling someone ignorant serve? To what purpose does linking a video to humiliate a participant serve?

This site is for discussion, I actually read the policy, why don't we respect what each other has to say and step away from the keyboard when we have nothing nice to say.

There are many sides to this issue. The group wanting to approve gay marriage should use persuasive discussion instead of trantrums and resorting to namecalling. I see the word “bigot” bantered about without considering the second and third order effects. Do you think that calling someone a bigot is persuasive?

Flap Doodle 5 years, 1 month ago

Why do the Blue Staters in Maine & California hate the differently pleasured?

Satirical 5 years, 1 month ago

Kmat…. “See, this is what I mean.”

So you ignore my rational arguments, and choose my tongue-incheek comment to claim I am not being rational? Can you say, “disingenuous?” Also, you were the one who claimed medical complications with offspring were legitimate reasons to deny someone the right to marry, not I. I respond to you argument and I am the one changing the topic?

“The topic is gay marriage.”

Which include the right to marry, does it not? How about you stop dodging the arguments by ignoring legitimate discussions about the broader issue of who should have the right to marry. I know you want to be the only person who decides what topics we discuss, who should have rights, and where the line is drawn; but what is hilarious is that these are the exact same things you hate about the opposition. Hypocrite.

somedude20 5 years, 1 month ago

BlessedSap (Anonymous) says… Yes when will Hollywood make a movie about the struggles of polygamists?

Not a movie but HBO has "Big Love" which all about that

denak 5 years, 1 month ago

There are two ways to look at the issue of same-sex marriage. One is normative, the other is administrative/legal. The normative view looks at the intrinsic value of marriage viewing it through a prism of societal, historical and religious realities. This view have value. It is what the average person uses in order to decide what matters to themselves and to society at large.

However, the way the court is going to decide is by viewing it through the administrative/legal viewpoint. The state has a compelling interest in defining marriage because it is the state that must concern itself with the allocation of its resources and in protecting the interest of its citizens.

If states want to ban same-sex marriage, there is still the issue of individuals who have legal marriages in other states. We can not have blanket non-recognition of same-sex marriages. If Jane and Melissa are married in Vermont, then their marriage should be recognized by all 50 states if they travel to another state. If Joe marries Carl in Massachussetts and then abandons Joe and moves to Texas, Massachussetts law should have jurisdiction over all legal matters pertaining to their marriage not Texas law. This is called "choice of law" and what it basically means is that the state where a person lives dictates the legal rights of the individuals involved. There is a long standing legal history of this concept and is what should be used to determine this issues involving same-sex marriage if same sex marriage is not confered on everyone.

Personally I see no legal reason. I would like someone to tell me the legal justification of why two people of the same sex should not get married.All marriages are civil unions as far as the state is concerned. Two people, gay or straight, can have have a wedding but until Party A and Party B sign the state sanctioned marriage certificate, there is no marriage. I would like to see the legal argument as to why the state should not sanction it. (It would be a really good idea if you can cite case law also)

Dena

denak 5 years, 1 month ago

The following is from the Massachussetts Supreme Court decision allowing same-sex marriage in their state. I think it is worth reading:

"Marriage is a vital social institution. The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support. Civil marriage is at once a deeply personal commitment to another human being and a highly public celebration of the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family. Because it fulfills yearnings for security, safe have and connection that expresses our common humanity, civil marriage is an esteemed institution and the decision whether and whom to marry is amon life's momentous acts of self-definition. It is undoubtly for these concrete reasons, as well as for its intimately personal significance, that civil marriage has long been termed a "civil right." Without the right to choose to marry, one is excluded from the full range of human experience."

Dena

Connacht 5 years, 1 month ago

"Yes. Some believe there are negative social aspects to broadening the definition of marriage."

I've never met a secular (an atheist or an agnostic) person who is opposed to same-sex marriage.

Opposing same-sex marriage is almost universally (I'm sure there are some non-religious people somewhere who disagree) a religious argument.

kmat 5 years, 1 month ago

Thank you monkey_c. I totally disagree with you, but I thank for you being a decent person and talking about the issue at hand.

I would like to see something proving that they're asking kids in school in Cali how do they know they aren't gay if they haven't tried it. I will guarantee that is not the curriculum and I tried to search for it and nothing came up online. Please provide a source for that information. Most of my family and husband's family are from Cali and there are a lot of current teachers in my family teaching out there.

Gays are normal. Who is to say what is normal and what isn't? At least 20% of the population is gay. You may not know many gay people. I don't seek them out, but have quite a few gay and lesbian friends. I also know that in the past, gay people led very hidden lives and married and had kids because it was expected of them. My uncle's first wife was actually a lesbian, but thought that she had to marry a man and have a family (this was in the late 50's). After being married for about a year, she realized she didn't want to lie about who she was any longer and admitted that she was a lesbian.

And I don't think we have to have norms. Diversity is a great thing and should be encouraged. Otherwise, we'd all just be "another brick in the wall".

Once again, thank you for actually discussing the topic rationally. People can disagree and have a logical, rational discussion. It would be nice if others could do the same.

Connacht 5 years, 1 month ago

"It is not an issue of supporting gay marriage. It is an issue of whether you support our democratic system."

The legal validity of the referendum is not in question, and neither is our semi-democratic system.

Connacht 5 years, 1 month ago

"Being against theft and murder are largely base on religion too."

Only if you're an amoral crackpot. The rest of us have a moral sense that pre-dates religion.

Satirical 5 years, 1 month ago

Denak… “We can not have blanket non-recognition of same-sex marriages.”

We already do. It’s called the Defense of Marriage Act. It was signed into law by Bill Clinton

“If Joe marries Carl in Massachussetts and then abandons Joe and moves to Texas, Massachussetts law should have jurisdiction over all legal matters pertaining to their marriage not Texas law.” - denak

That is not how marriage laws work (same-sex or traditional)

If you get married in MA and move to TX, you take your marriage status with you. You don’t need consent of the other party or the other state to get a divorce. If MA only grants a divorce due to adultery, and TX grants a divorce on a no-fault basis, then you can get a divorce based on TX laws. The TX court will have both subject matter and personal jurisdiction over the issue of the divorce. The only Constitutional issue is domiciliary, but that isn’t relevant.

“I would like someone to tell me the legal justification of why two people of the same sex should not get married.” - denak

I don’t think the law can (or does) tell someone why they should or shouldn’t get married. But the law can (and does) decide the requirements to be married.

“All marriages are civil unions as far as the state is concerned.” - denak

Except they are called….marriages…. A semantics debate doesn’t help your argument.


“I would like to see the legal argument as to why the state should not sanction it.” - denak

I think you should look at why laws are created and passed. There are many reasons. Some are economic, some are social, some are political, and some are even (brace yourselves liberals) based on ethics and morals. You cannot separate the “normative” from the legal so easily because law makers and voters consider the “normative” when deciding which laws to create and/or pass.

kmat 5 years, 1 month ago

Hey Sat - news for you. Liberals have morals too. Pull your whacko conservative head out your *ss.

Mel Briscoe 5 years, 1 month ago

sat, i am so not going to scroll through the all 100 plus comments of this thread to take down names of the folks who wreak of morality and heterosexualness. c'mon, now, don't try and act like everyone up in here who is anti-gay marriage is pragmatic and has an argument that is non-morality based (and/or religious to the nth degree). monkey shines is one of them... go back and revel in his/her godliness and y'all's other cohorts and you will know what i mean (as if you don't already).

monkey_c 5 years, 1 month ago

KMAT - For example, not wanting their kids to see gay people kiss in public and having to explain it to them (which is stupid anyways because there's no law banning that from happening whether they're married or not). Yeah, well, there should be a law...

Mel Briscoe 5 years, 1 month ago

your screen name is very sanctimonial, blessed. it makes me want to genuflect.

jonas_opines 5 years, 1 month ago

Satirical: "I never said my statements were in response to what anyone previously posted. So you don't disagree with this statement?"

That marriage doesn't necessarily have anything to do with love? Yes, I've seen a few marriages that have nothing to do with love. For this issue, no, to me it has to do with decision rights and personal choice, not love. Those are harder, more tangible concepts, and more suited to legality and governance.

"And for society to recognize, it must approve."

Why? And who is "society" anyway? According to the vote, "society" is the side that holds a 3% majority in the vote. That means that 47% of Maine's "society" has no problem with recognition. A change in 3% of the population would suddenly make "society" approve of the thing?

For that matter, what does social recognition even mean to you? It's not the same, to my mind at least, as approval. I don't approve of unions between 18 year old playboy models and 90 year old oil tycoons, but I recognize their union, because it's a legal contract that they entered into. And, of course, because it's none of my damned business. As far as I'm concerned, the only recognition that need be involved is that of the legal contract, and the status that it gives.

"Therefore, I don’t see how not recognizing a marriage alters any personal contract. Same-sex couples are free to engage in a relationship with each other."

I'll point out that the main point I see of the marriage contract and institution, that stays consistent through pretty much all marriages, is only the joining of property and decision rights into one generally unquestioned entity, in one common contract. Frankly, if they were to just bundle those into a civil union and be done with it, I'd have no more issue, though I understand why advocates are afraid of seperate/unequal potentialities. The further "rights" conferred by marriage, such as tax-breaks, insurance issues, etc. etc. are to my mind clutter to sweeten the deal and promote a particular lifestyle. A method of social governance that I happen to dissaprove of, as much on taxes for sin products as forbidding certain recognized unions.

jonas_opines 5 years, 1 month ago

"No, it is dependent on how you define a right. A right can be defined as a moral or legal claim, but an unrecognized really isn’t a right."

This I agree with. I'm pretty much a social construct, social contract type of thinker, and I don't believe in natural rights (with two exceptions, thus far, none of which fit on this thread) But it is true that marriage as a "right" in our society is inconsistently applied, and has been through much of its history. The example of the judge denying a license to the mixed-race couple, and the outrage that sparked, contrasted with this issue, shows that pretty clearly. People have a "right" to be angry about it. Using a less empty phrasing method, perhaps I'll change that to people inevitably will be angry about it, and attempt to change it.

Truthfully, this issue shows to me more than any other the elusive nature of rights in society. At this time and place in our society, this is a doomed issue. Because it's revolving around a significantly small and heavily stigmatized demographic, and the popular vote then revolves around people who will force others to make sacrifices that they won't have to make themselves. Thus, the issue of "individual rights" is shown to be what it truly is: a gloss over a collectivist decision. Might (personal or numbers) makes right.

"Explain how something cannot be right until it is recognized is inconsistent with the philosophy of personal responsibility and choice."

Recognized by who? A majority opinion? Would that not strike you as inconsistent with the philosophy of personal (individual) responsability and choice?

Chris Golledge 5 years, 1 month ago

OK Satirical, I'll go through it slowly for you.

The topic of the day, this issue, is marriage. You said,

“This issue isn’t about love, it is about society and the government recognizing and protections to certain relationships.”

“I never said love has nothing to do with marriage.”

Since we agree the issue is marriage, simple substitution of your words yields,

"Marriage isn't about love,..."

Which, of course, is contradicted by your next statement.

Oh, wait, you said, "...certain relationships". What relationships are we talking about? Oh yeah, marriages.

Despite your inability to think logically, I suspect you know what a rhetorical question is. In case you missed the point, my questions are intended to point out that most people do in fact believe that marriage is, or should be, based on love and a spiritual or religious bonding. If you don't belief me, try to imagine anyone telling their spouse, "Love or any sort of spiritual connection has nothing to do with why I am married to you."

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't imagine that many marriages would be the same after a statement like that was made.

However, if the general populace accepts this postulate, that marriage is based on the bonds mentioned above, then they quickly run into a conflict because they also believe that the government has no business telling anyone with whom they may establish such bonds, yet they would very much like to not have the government recognize relationships between people when they find those relationships offensive.

So, they invent a circumvention, a fiction, that says that marriage is only a secular relationship, rather like a business partnership. The government can create laws regarding these kinds of relationships, and hey, homosexuals are a minority, the majority rules, and viola, QED.

How do we know this is a fiction? Easy, if people really believed marriage was like a business partnership and nothing more, it would not provoke such strong responses on this forum and elsewhere.

And, I will answer at least one of your questions. Yes, while I think polygamy is a really bad idea, I don't think that the government should have a voice in the matter. An incestuous marriage is an even worse idea, but the same rules apply.

remember_username 5 years, 1 month ago

Earlier Mr_Right_Wing noted his position that the majority of Americans do not believe in gay marriage regardless of religious justifications. Most polls place the percentage of Americans identifying with Christianity close to 80%. Assuming the majority of these hold to the belief that marriage must be between man/woman it would take only a small part of the secular population (say a little over 10%) to reach the 53% noted in the above article. I believe this issue is much more a religious issue than a political one in spite of partisan leanings of both political extremes. Because of this it is bound to be very emotional with the minority LGBT community considerably handicapped.

As unfair as it may be, the civil union compromise may be the best approach for today's America. If the same rights of inheritance, health care, adoption, and other rights could be granted to unions other than male/female marriage there would at least be legal protections in place. Extending the institution of "marriage" to all relationships legally does not automatically imply community acceptance - obviously. So let's call it (marriage) something else for now, let change follow along with societal acceptance, too slow for some - too fast for others.

There's no difference really. I've been married by a Priest and by a civil servant, they're both excellent methods of giving away your house, and your money.

jonas_opines 5 years, 1 month ago

“6. Sure you can.” – jonas_opines

"Not if you are being intellectually honest."

Shucks, I been done found out. >:^P>

"Any non-arbitrary argument one makes advocating for same-sex marriage can be used to advocate for polygamy, and group marriage. Any non-arbitrary arguments opposing polygamy, etc. can be used against same-sex marriage."

I think most of the comparisons bog down in the minutea (sp?). Except of course for the most relevant one, social (cough) recognition and the visibility and power of the lobbying efforts.

"You are responding to the argument you think I implied, not the statement I actually made. Some things impact society more than others. Changing the fundamental make-up of the family which is the most basic and important association on this planet will surely have ramifications."

But that's pretty much an if-then conditional, that assumes that offering the rights of marriage to homosexuals will, in fact, change the fundamental make-up of the family. I simply struggle to see how inclusion of this extra perameter in any way alters existing or future marriages. It seems to imply that the only thing lacking for most people to not be heterosexual is recognition. I don't believe that is true, and I do believe that it is, at this point, unjustifiable.

monkey_c 5 years, 1 month ago

Honeychild, It's monkey c not monkey shine and you may not like my opinion on this, But I never once mentioned God or Religion. Only my own secular comfort zone. So it would be difficult to revel in my godliness. Unless you are suggesting that I am Christ-like to which I would have to say you should not suggest any thing of the sort.

jonas_opines 5 years, 1 month ago

monkey C: “Mommy, why is that man sucking on that woman’s face?” “Well, dear when a man loves a woman, they suck face then they have a baby.”

Err. . . right, that's surely what's at play there, the desire to have a baby.

Mel Briscoe 5 years, 1 month ago

okay okay.... so i jumped to conclusions in thinking that folks were on a biblical high horse.... whatever.

Olympics 5 years, 1 month ago

Just remember conservatives...you are losing this vote and will continue to do so. All of the demographic projections bare this out. Your grandkids don't care if people are gay and feel it is a civil rights issue. 10-20 years and most of the anti-gay bigots will be dead.

You got a minor victory in Maine, but you lost big in Washington (a lot of money was spent by right wing organizations on that campaign). And yes, your names will be posted to the public as they should. We have to have transparency on who is funding elections and other initiatives. As for the charges of persecution of christians by the gay community...that is laughable.

Katara 5 years, 1 month ago

BlessedSap (Anonymous) says… If we are to redefine marriage I have my eye on wife number two, she will bare many off my children and the world will have 25+ “mini mes” running around. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I'm sorry but currently it is against the law for your wife to bare your children and let them run around the world.

That's a good way for you and wife number two to get on the sex offender list.

Pervert.

Jimo 5 years, 1 month ago

I guess if the Catholic Church, Focus on the Family, etc. takes enough of their tax-exempt money and uses it to buy ads about how the gays are out to get your kids you can still scare about 52 percent of the people.

Most of the 'repeal' money came from out of state and most of that money was limited to a few privileged donors. Maybe that privilege should be taken away? After all, if it isn't used to serve others but rather to fund hatred among people, then why the rest of us pick up the bill?

For an idea that's about a decade old and was once considered something only the insane would support, I'd say this is doing quite well.

gccs14r 5 years, 1 month ago

Gay marriage bans violate the 14th Amendment. Once the Court shifts back toward fairness and decency, gay marriage bans will go the way of interracial bans.

notajayhawk 5 years, 1 month ago

flclhack (Maxwell Butterfield) says…

"What the gay community needs is another Lincoln to take a stand and say that this is wrong."

Poor choice of a champion.

Lincoln was a bigot. He was against slavery but never favored African-Americans being equal.

Jama Crady Maxfield 5 years, 1 month ago

I sincerely hope some of you aren't from Lawrence.....Satirical, Setting the Record Straight.......as I've always been so proud of my hometown and the fact that most Lawrencians aren't as narrow minded or bigoted as the majority of Americans feel Kansans are. You two give Kansans a bad name/image. Kmat........keep it up! I agree with you whole heartedly!

gccs14r 5 years, 1 month ago

One of the purposes of having a representative democracy is to protect the people from a tyrrany of the majority. it's stupid to put things like this to a vote. Besides, 53 to 47 is hardly a sweeping mandate.

brian1981 5 years, 1 month ago

I don't care what gay people do in the privacy of their own homes . . . it's none of my business. I don't care if they have civil unions or name each other in wills or have power of attorney over their mutually-adopted children or whatever.

What bothers me is the 1984-style Newspeak we have going on. Every English dictionary I have ever read claims that "marriage" is between "a man and a woman".

I simply don't think it's up to the government, or judges, or gay people, or for that matter straight people, to redefine a word that has been in the Indo-European language family for probably thousands of years. I mean, if we are going to start redefining words like "marriage" to mean whatever one activist group wants it to mean, why not "democracy", or "freedom", or "free speech"? Where does it stop? Where do we draw the line in how far we want to twist the English language to suit our own beliefs?

jaywalker 5 years, 1 month ago

“The institution of marriage has been preserved in Maine and across the nation,”

With this many entries someone had to have said it, but.....'preserved' from what? And spare me any religious reference whatsoever. I do believe in a higher power, but arguing against homosexuality is like arguing against air.

pace 5 years, 1 month ago

The party that seems to be learning from history are the Republicans. Their hysterical tone of rhetoric, appealing to the prejudice and fears of people. One would assume the hateful rhetoric, the prejudice and the extreme theatrics would turn people off, On the contrary they work well in times of economic crisis, The irony that the tirades against gays, against health care reform won't bring order, denouncing social reforms and declaring civil rights are against god won't fix the economy . This will be lost on the people who join a herd and are proud to be brave enough to publicly admit they are haters, Some fantasize that all a homosexual is are the sex acts ( pious sitting in the dark shuddering, while they imagine them). Much as a teen ager shudders when it is suggested that one's parent have sex. I don't think the idea of understanding and accepting homosexuals would include diagramming all the possible sex acts to children. Don't shield my child from the word homosexual, I want my child to understand reality. If I catch you or your friend describing adult sex practices, homosexual or heterosexual to my child as part of your faith, be prepared to be hunted like a jack rabbit.

BigPrune 5 years, 1 month ago

What if science came up with a treatment for homosexuality?

Kris_H 5 years, 1 month ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Mel Briscoe 5 years, 1 month ago

big prune, you've posed such an interesting question... what if science did something like that. wow.... it boggles the mind, doesn't it?

jafs 5 years, 1 month ago

BP,

What is science came up with a treatment for heterosexuality?

jafs 5 years, 1 month ago

BP,

What if science came up with a treatment for heterosexuality?

kmat 5 years, 1 month ago

monkey_c (Anonymous) says…

KMAT - For example, not wanting their kids to see gay people kiss in public and having to explain it to them (which is stupid anyways because there's no law banning that from happening whether they're married or not). Yeah, well, there should be a law…


And this is why you are a homophobe monkey. I see a lot of straight guys adjust themselves and scratch at their crotches in public and think there should be a low banning men from touching their junk in public. I don't like seeing guys do farmers blows in public. I don't like whiney kids that parents don't control. Can we just start making anything we don't like illegal?

Satirical 5 years, 1 month ago

Kmat… “Hey Sat - news for you. Liberals have morals too. Pull your whacko conservative head out your *ss”

When did I say liberals don’t have morals? What I said was that some laws are based on morals. If you understand your own ideology you would understand liberalism is generally opposed to the idea of basing laws on morals, while conservatives are generally in favor of putting some morals into law. Ex: Abortion, Same-sex marriage, etc.

Seems like you are an individual who only knows how to twist others' comments and attack others, but either doesn't know or can't defend their own beliefs/rationale. There is a name for those type of people - internet troll.

Satirical 5 years, 1 month ago

Honeychild… “sat, i am so not going to scroll through the all 100 plus comments of this thread to take down names of the folks who wreak of morality and heterosexualness.”

You didn’t claim people were moral and heterosexual, you claimed there were homophobe hypocrites, or specifically “…it is also repulsive and it makes me feel really sad that most of the proud homophobes in this thread profess the name of jesus christ as their guide, teacher and savior.”

I am simply asking you to back up your claim with evidence. But I guess asking a liberal to back up their emotional and unsubstantiated personal attacks is like trying to get blood from a stone.

“c'mon, now, don't try and act like everyone up in here who is anti-gay marriage is pragmatic and has an argument that is non-morality based (and/or religious to the nth degree)” - Honeychild

I never made such a claim or acted as such. But you seem to be acting “like everyone up in here who is (pro)-(same-sex) marriage is pragmatic and has an argument that is non-(emotionally) based.” And at the same time making baseless accusations against those who don’t support same-sex marriage.

Do you support polygamy, group marriage and incestuous marriage? If not, then you are a bigot.

Satirical 5 years, 1 month ago

Cg22165…

Dude, I have no idea what your argument is or what you are saying. Next time you respond, I suggest you do it sober.

Satirical 5 years, 1 month ago

I have never asked this before, but could someone please interpret cg22165? It appears he disagrees that marriage is a civil institution and disagrees that a same-sex couples are not denied a loving relationship simply because they are denied a marriage license. But I have no idea what are his arguments (except I understand he is against polygamy and incestuous marriage but didn’t say why).

Also, can someone else please attempt to explain to cg22165 that there is a difference between a religious ceremony and a marriage license granted by the State, and that one is not required for, nor guarantees the other. Somehow I have failed to effectively communicate this elementary fact.

Jonas_opines are you up to the task, or anyone else?

Satirical 5 years, 1 month ago

Jonas_opines… “Why? And who is “society” anyway? A change in 3% of the population would suddenly make “society” approve of the thing?”

Because that is how democracy works. By “society” I am referring to the majority of the population, again because that is how democracy works. Yes a majority vote of the population would suddenly make “society” approve of it; that is how democracy works.

“For that matter, what does social recognition even mean to you?” - Jonas_opines

In this context, it means citizens agree to change the laws to recognize a different type of union can be called “marriage” and receive the benefits thereto. It is not approval by everyone, but it is approval by a majority.

“Recognized by who? A majority opinion? Would that not strike you as inconsistent with the philosophy of personal (individual) responsability and choice?” - Jonas_opines

Yes. The philosophy of person responsibility is not at odds with democratic philosophy. Why do you think they are inconsistent?

As to “personal choice,” I would agree any civil structure is at odds with this concept, since one must sacrifice some personal freedom whenever they are in a social contract or under government. Again, this brings us back to the concept of a right. One person/group/entity having a right means some other person/group/entity has a reciprocal responsibility (thus meaning they must do, or refrain from doing something), everyone gets certain benefits (rights) and has certain detriments (responsibilities) in a social structure. But I would argue that personal choice is actually maximized in a democracy. Additional, any impairment to personal choice in this respect does not go against conservative philosophy (assuming that is why you were implying in your question).

Satirical 5 years, 1 month ago

Cont'd

“But that's pretty much an if-then conditional, that assumes that offering the rights of marriage to homosexuals will, in fact, change the fundamental make-up of the family.” - Jonas_opines

I agree it is an if-them conditional. And I think this is one of the large disagreements between those advocating same-sex marriage and those opposing. Those opposing see marriage and inseparable from the concept of a family. They see marriage as more than just simply a private contract, but a social contract with social implications. The fact that society must recognize the marriage gives support to this thought. Opponents see that marriage is important for stable families and families are the cornerstone of society. They believe that when you shake a cornerstone too much the building can topple. Additionally they see that society has flourished with the traditional definition and see potential social problems by changing the definition of family to include same-sex/polygamy/group marriage/ and incestuous marriage.

“I simply struggle to see how inclusion of this extra perameter in any way alters existing or future marriages.” - Jonas_opines

I agree that it doesn’t affect marriages per se, but that has never been an argument, and is in fact a red herring of the same-sex marriage advocates. Changing the definition of marriage does have an affect on society. Those advocating see marriage as a simple private contract, while opponents see marriage as a special social agreement.

“It seems to imply that the only thing lacking for most people to not be heterosexual is recognition.” - Jonas_opines

I don’t think it has anything to do with preventing people from becoming homosexual (if that is what you are implying). It does suggest that society does not want to encourage, and agree with giving benefits to those types of relationship; similar to how it doesn't give benefits to couples who aren't married. Why, because marriage benefits society, and society things marriage should be encouraged.

Although on the flip side, one could argue gays and lesbians are trying to force acceptance of their lifestyle down the majority’s throat. Everyone should tolerate, but the majority gets to decide if it is accepted.

Satirical 5 years, 1 month ago

Ok…. “Satirical, Setting the Record Straight…….as I've always been so proud of my hometown and the fact that most Lawrencians aren't as narrow minded or bigoted as the majority of Americans feel Kansans are.”

So you support polygamy, group marriage, and incestuous marriage as well? If not, then you are a bigot, and a hypocrite for attacking (what you think are) my desire to exclude some from marriage when you also want to exclude.

pace 5 years, 1 month ago

I do support polygamy, group marriage, gay marriage, traditional marriage but not incestuous marriage. I need a wife, someone who can make my life and home a paradise and castle. I do not care if the wife is a woman or man. I don't need another husband as I have found a good one.

denak 5 years, 1 month ago

Satirical,

There is a book entitled, "Same Sex, Different State" by Andrew Koppleman. He is a law professor at Northwestern University. His area of law is constitional law and political philosophy. You can get the book through interlibrary loan from Washburn Law School.

I think if you read this book you would understand what I am talking about in terms of "choice of law" and comity and how it effects the situations that I described and how the laws that we have in place now, do not protect our citizens, our children and are in violation not only of legal precendent but our Constitution.

Dena

Satirical 5 years, 1 month ago

denak...

It appears this book is based on normative views, not based on how the law currently operates. I stated how the law currently operates. I understand "choice of law," comity, the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the U.S. Constitution. Likely this author is claiming the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. I agree there are legitimate arguments to be made to support that point of view.

How do our current laws not protect our citizens? Are you referring only to marriage laws?

jonas_opines 5 years, 1 month ago

Satirical: Most of the others are stalemates it seems, but for this: "Because that is how democracy works. By “society” I am referring to the majority of the population, again because that is how democracy works. Yes a majority vote of the population would suddenly make “society” approve of it; that is how democracy works."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the very reason, more or less, given by the founders as to why we were made to be a representative republic and Not a democracy? I'm not one to advocate accepting their ideas without critical evaluation either, but it seems a marked point.

I don't, by the way, have the patience for your other request, at least not today.

Satirical 5 years, 1 month ago

Jonas_opines… “Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the very reason, more or less, given by the founders as to why we were made to be a representative republic and Not a democracy?”

Are you claiming our country was established as a democratic-republic rather than a pure democracy because the Founders were fearful of the tyranny of the majority (which can also occur in a republic), or because they were afraid of the uneducated masses making too many decision?

If you are suggesting the prior, as I already stated, a democratic-republic does little to protect against a tyranny of the majority. That is the role of the courts.

As to the latter, I would agree that our nation has become more democratic over time. I don’t see this as a bad thing (although, I still think a democratic-republic is better than a pure democracy). Each state has sovereignty and can decide how laws are passed, and whether something is up for popular vote. Maine and many other states allow for direct vote of the people under certain circumstances. I don’t think this notion is contradictory to the Founders intentions.

“I don't, by the way, have the patience for your other request, at least not today.” – jonas_opines

No biggie, have a good evening.

remember_username 5 years, 1 month ago

Sometimes it's a joy to realize I can still be surprised by the behavior of everyday people. It seems like I can go from one blog where (most) everybody is amusing and polite, to another where emotions run so high it's a wonder some of you can type. Can a compromise be found that will be acceptable by a large majority of both parties? If both sides of the isle would expend as much effort on finding a solution to our problems as they do on beating the other team we would all be much better off. So?

Commenting has been disabled for this item.