Maine Repeals Same-Sex Marriage Law

graydaygal
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 10:48 am: [report]

I’m from Maine, and super bummed!  wtf is right! here’s a quote that’s been going around as a result:

“From the equality of rights springs identity of our highest interests; you cannot subvert your neighbor’s rights without striking a dangerous blow at your own.” Carl Schurz

funny that the right will take away a women’s right to choose and gay marriage, but will throw a fit over protecting their guns… it’s all the same… as this quote illustrates.

skywalk
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 10:48 am: [report]

Really bummed out, my county voted not to repeal 60/40 and my City 55/45, they may have won this battle but not the war!

CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 10:53 am: [report]

Here is a picture of the ‘winners’: http://i.imgur.com/FDFx2.jpg

Here’s what one of their biggest organizers had to say. Oh, and he’s a Reverend:

“God has given us this victory,” Emrich continued, “and it is very important for us to recognize that he is the one who put the energy into this campaign. So let’s not be so arrogant to forget this. It’s very appropriate to pause for a moment of prayer.”

Timeguy55
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 10:53 am: [report]

Sometimes i hate the USA

MuchoMacho
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 10:59 am: [report]

i dont believe in god.  im not convinced he doesnt exist either, but if he does exist, and hes like these people think he is, i hate him.

equnsuocha
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 11:02 am: [report]

I am sure they trucked up all the retards from Utah and the Mormon Church (not that all Mormons are retards or bigots mind you, just this group) to spend tons of money on tricking the public into voting for something they didnt want like they did here in CA.  Once they realized the average voter really doesnt pay attention to what they are voting on I imagine this was the conversation:
“SO you know they really dont pay attention to what they are voting on so lets do this, lets word the ballot so No means Yes and Yes means No”  “Awesome idea Carl thanks for remembering the rules of college dating and applying it to something that is purely unconstitutional and will suppress our brothers and sisters”  ***round of applause***  ***pause for prayer***  Douchebags deluxe

Timeguy55
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 11:06 am: [report]

@muchoMacho bravo… i agree 111%

40yrolddad
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 11:09 am: [report]

man, I really thought we had reached the tipping point on this…

what these people don’t realize is that there WILL come a day - & make NO mistake it is absolutely a WHEN ? - that people look back on this era like we do desegregation:  “WTF were those people thinking?  WHY did they waste so much time, $ & energy fighting something they were so OBVIOUSLY wrong about?”.  all they can do is push back WHEN society comes to its senses & waste a bunch of time, $ & (other) people’s happiness in the process…

sadly, today is not that day…  but make no mistake, it will come…

MuchoMacho
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 11:09 am: [report]

@equb - we voted to ban them in WI.  the ballot was like “check YES if you do not want to unban the right for people of a non-heterosexual orientation to not be un-allowed to marry.”  what?  the?  fruck?

intuition
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 11:13 am: [report]

Separation of church and state.  It is NOT a new idea.

equnsuocha
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 11:14 am: [report]

@Mucho RIGHT!  They did the same thing here in CA I cant tell you how many people were shocked that Prop 8 passed and when I asked them if they voted they said “Yes I chose yes on 8!”  I was like “Dude you really need to stop smoking your product, Yes on 8 meant NO rights to marriage and No on 8 meant Yes to rights on marriage so to support gay marriage you had to vote No!”  They were all like “wait, what?”  Incredible, sad and 100% true

aquamarine
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 11:23 am: [report]

It’s only a matter of time.  I am from Maine and live in the SF Bay Area.  I voted no on 8 last year and my family happily voted no on 1 (and canvassed) this year in Maine.  If it were up to Cumberland County (the southern part of Maine), Prop 1 would have been an easy reject.  If it were up to the Bay Area, Prop 8 would have gone the same way in California.

Older, less tolerant generations are on their way out.  This was a very disheartening defeat, but things WILL change.  It is not much comfort today, but it is only a matter of time.

skywalk
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 11:26 am: [report]

@aquamarine:  agreed I’m from Cumberland County and I have a 16 YO and I think a few years from now when her generation starts voting things will really start to change all across Amercia.

MuchoMacho
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 11:31 am: [report]

when the religious wrong starts dying off, we will see progress.

Andrea964
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 01:28 pm: [report]

I am from Portland, and like the others said, if it were up to the Southern part of Maine, it would have passed no problem.  I was shocked this morning when I found out it didn’t pass, I was really hoping that there were not that many bigots here, but I was wrong. It makes me sad.

bethlynn00
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 02:49 pm: [report]

Man,this gave me a major case of the sads when I heard it. I was hoping that we (well at least Maine)had moved past all the hatin’ on people just trying to find their own happiness.  I guess the bigots continue to just want others to be as miserable as they are. It sucks.

lewomack
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 05:05 pm: [report]

Me = So very very sad…

MondimNebel
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 09:42 pm: [report]

@ intuition: “separation of Church and State” means we will not be a theocracy like England was at that time, when the English people HAD to be a member of the Church of England. In America, we were given the freedom to choose what religion we wanted to practice, if we wanted to. It also means that there is no Church head (such as the Pope) who makes our laws.

The government cannot legally tell any Church who they can or cannot marry, and marriage is a religious institution. A civil union is performed by the state, but we call it a marriage for straight people anyway. For this reason, I am AGAINST gay marriage but FOR gay civil unions (government can’t tell any Church what they can/cannot do). Any Church or priest/rabbi/minister/etc can marry a gay couple if they so choose, but it won’t be legal in our government.

Also, I think the vote results have more to do with the people who actually show up to vote. So many people aren’t registered, and of those who are, not nearly enough people actually come out and vote. One reason? They assume what they want will win. I bet there were a lot of people who would not have voted gay marriage down but didn’t care enough to show up to vote.

bumbler
wrote on November 4 2009 @ 11:10 pm: [report]

My husband and I were married in a secular ceremony by an officiant who has no religious affiliation and yet we are “married.”  The term marriage has no religious affiliation anymore, it’s a government contract that’s all.

MondimNebel
wrote on November 5 2009 @ 07:10 am: [report]

We call it a marriage, but if you have a secular ceremony, it is technically a civil union; marriage is still a religious ceremony.

joyy
wrote on November 5 2009 @ 09:13 am: [report]

@mondim - you’re talking semantics.  One way to allow equality for gays would be to redefine the gov sanction on marriage by changing the wording to civil union, then allowing anyone to join in one, gay or straight, and leaving the churches to do what they please.  But it’s a marriage certificate, not a civil union certificate, that is issued by the government.

I think this would definitely be one way to make things equal, but I worry that it would actually give ammo to the loons who say that gay marriage threatens traditional marriage since the gov would be technically calling it something else. 

To you, marriage may be a religious institution, but the government sanctions MARRIAGE.  I mean I actually am ok with your solution - everyone would probably call themselves married regardless of it, but I don’t think that even that simple word change on the legal end of it is going to happen.

MuchoMacho
wrote on November 5 2009 @ 09:20 am: [report]

@mondim - i actually agree with you on marriage vs civil unions…  my gf and i are extremely anti-religion, and when i am ready to ask (and if shes ready to say yes) i would love us to have a civil union instead of a marriage ceremony…

skywalk
wrote on November 5 2009 @ 09:25 am: [report]

MuchoMacho:  there you go let’s make being married VERY UNCOOL AND OLD SCHOOL everyone should start calling it a civil union..  Basically tell them to stuff their marriage is for a man in a women where the sun don’t shine, because all the cool kids are being civically unioned

lawyrgrl
wrote on November 5 2009 @ 09:26 am: [report]

I lived in Maine for a little over 3 years and I am very disappointed in my “temporary state.”  Given the overwhelming “you can’t tell me what to do” attitude that surrounded just about everything up there, I was certain that the majority would allow people to simply live their lives.  What a hypocritical shame!

bumbler
wrote on November 5 2009 @ 09:27 am: [report]

@joyy exactly my paperwork says State of Florida Marriage Record.

@Mondim That may be how you would like the terms to be defined but it’s not reality.  I am legally married.

MuchoMacho
wrote on November 5 2009 @ 09:44 am: [report]

@sky - lol…  im just so fed up with the jesus freaks…

skywalk
wrote on November 5 2009 @ 09:55 am: [report]

@MuchoMacho:  I’m with yourorganized religion is too cultage (not a word?)  for me I don’t get it, but to each their own.  The truth is and they just won’t admit it is that marriage came first.  Check out this link is goes into the history of marriage.  http://www.islandmix.com/backchat/f9/origin-marriage-50901/