Maine Voters Repeal Gay Marriage

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

lgbt flg

Maine voters repealed a law Tuesday allowing same-sex couples to wed, dealing the gay marriage rights movement its 31st defeat on the issue. Gay marriage has now lost in every single state in which civil rights are left up to the voters.

A number activists have asked why I didn’t use my voice and my blog to advocate more often on behalf of Maine. So let me respond.

First, I’ve written a number of pieces analyzing where the money came from used to fund the antigay marriage effort in Maine. The vast majority came from just two sources: the National Organization for Marriage and the Catholic Church.

Second, I stayed away from the finger pointing and mudslinging leading up to the vote because I know all-too-well what the record is when marriage equality is decided by the voters and it always favors the religious bigots. Hate is a powerful motivator and it turned out that Maine — thought to have a moderate, independent-minded electorate, is no different from Texas or Florida.

I am not remotely surprised by the vote in Maine. That’s not to say I’m not disappointed and even angry — I’m just not surprised. I mean, if gay marriage can’t win in California, was it ever realistic to expect a different outcome in Maine?

For years I have said civil rights have no place on the ballot. If gay activists are serious about expanding the definition of “marriage” to include same-sex couples, the only sure fire way to make this a reality is to challenge the issue as a Federal constitutional matter before the U.S. Supreme Court. Is such a move fraught with risks? Of course but as it stands, antigay marriage advocates are 0-for-31. Gay marriage equality is too important to be left up to individual states.

This entry was posted in Civil Rights, Gay Marriage, LGBT, News and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

88 Responses to Maine Voters Repeal Gay Marriage

  1. feminazi says:

    If Ted Olson and David Boies prevail and successfully argue their case before the High Court in support of same-sex marriage, then all of these state challenges will evaporate and the matter will be decided once and for all.

  2. DMason says:

    I agree with you, Christopher but, I would like to see Obama be able to make one more appointment to the Supreme Court before Olson and Boies’ case is heard. I would feel more confident of the outcome. The make up of the court right now means the decision could go either way.

  3. MLIN says:

    If the voting majority systematically votes against gay marriage, independently of the sources of the campaigns funds, probably it reflects the fact that for the majority the definition of marriage should not change …
    Why to blame on the funds only? Isn’t it too simplistic to reduce it to one determinant? Isn’t it contradictory to respect ‘majority’ for all other stuff, but when it does not fit my own agenda, it is called ‘hate’?

  4. Joe in Colorado says:

    Another well thought out argument, Christopher. I think the Supreme Court must get involved because these referendums are an attack on the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. These referendums are clearly unconstitutional and scream to remedy.

  5. Brigadoon says:

    Imagine a state that outlawed interracial marriage? I know many in the south held/hold such a union to be unholy and wrong. It took the Supreme Court in 1967 to strike down the last miscegenation law and erase it from memory.

  6. Rob says:

    Imagine a state that outlawed marrying your sibling. Or outlawed marrying a child. Or multiple people. Oh, wait, there are.

    Marriage has been “limited” to those that benefit society as whole. Man/Woman marriages result in ideally healthy babies who carry on society, presumably without causing the government to support them. (That some are not healthy or don’t result in children aren’t a problem; the situation exists to care for any children… again, ideally).
    I’ve got no problem with gay couples living together or doing whatever they want, but laws should be made for societies benefit, not individuals.

  7. MT says:

    Rob, I’m pretty interested in knowing how you propose to ensure that everyone’s marriage is benefitting society in order remain legal. I suppose you must think childless couples are taking advantage of the system.

  8. Jim says:

    So right. Let the Supreme Court decide. Eventually, right will win.

  9. Joseph Lewis says:

    While I’d like to support every item on the social justice agenda, our nation is built upon the idea of a legal system that evolves with the will of the people. If the will of the people in every state is to outlaw something, such as gay marriage, then over-ruling those referendums with Supreme Court judicial “legislation” would undermine the essential legal freedoms and flexibilities of the American system.

    Also, the Supreme Court comprises nine un-elected individuals who serve for unlimited terms. To give such a body final judicial and legal control over the rights and freedoms of the states is anti-democratic.

  10. Rob says:

    I handled that in the post. The law allows the societal-benefiting setting. Forgive me, there is no societal benefit to gay marriage (it might make them happy, but ultimately, so what? From a legal standpoint.) Marriage is ideally set up so that mom can stay at home with the kids, creating well-adjusted future adults to propogate the species and carry on the culture–we’ve strayed far from that ideal, but the setting still works and even in dual income homes with nannies and babysitters, society carries on. Gay marriage–apart from adoption and the studies are still out whether that’s a good thing or not–does not carry society on. I’m not say don’t go out and be happy. Be happy, do what you will, harm no one, but marriage is the nucleus of a family. The law should not be changed unless there is a societal benefit.

  11. danakennedy says:

    Mr. Lewis, we live under a system of checks and balances. The purpose of the Judicial branch of government is to provide a degree of protection against the tyranny of the majority. One merely has to look at a few of the historic Supreme Court decisions to see the need for the system as it now stands.

    http://danakennedy.wordpress.com
    http://oldcameras.wordpress.com

  12. threewinds says:

    Rob, the societal benefits are more subtle than “produces healthy children”. If a couple, any couple, is happier they will be more productive, more creative, less inclined to counter-productive measures against the society that they feel persecutes them.

    Ask yourself, how much production has been lost on this issue when you factor in the millions of lost manpower hours and the billions of dollars spent in lobbying, organizing, marching, and protesting? For what purpose?

    If, “Be happy, do what you will, harm no one…”, is truly your belief than ask yourself what possible harm any, ANY, civil union between other adults can do to you?

    However, far more frightening to me personally is your assertion that, “Marriage is ideally set up so that mom can stay at home with the kids.” Does that mean that you feel my grandparents should now be divorced? They are far beyond the ages that they can produce more children.

    What about couples that are found to be infertile? Should they be required to divorce? And, what about the widows? Now that they are no longer “socially productive” should any previous civil benefits (such as pensions, insurance policies, shared properties, etc) be taken from them until they can reclaim such benefits by marrying again?

    Your casual, and ignorant, opinions must be challenged Rob. Sadly, until you challenge them, they will certainly not change.

    Good luck to you.

  13. GB says:

    Wisdom prevails… for the moment. I’ve always found it interesting that just because someone disagrees with gay marriage that they are accused of “hate.” It is the most juvenile response to a dissenting opinion. I have three teenagers. I’ve heard the same response from them when they didn’t get to do whatever they wanted. “You just hate me!” It’s ridiculous. They know it isn’t true. Everything about my life with them confirms it. Fortunately, my kids always come around and recognize there’s a reason why they don’t get to do whatever feels good them all the time. My “vote” against their wishes isn’t hatred. It’s actually love. I wonder if the gay community will ever figure that out?

  14. Joseph says:

    I thi we shound view marriage specifically on acount of procreaton and all other benefits as secondery .only shall we be able to arrive at a justfiable conclusion.

  15. TAO says:

    The law should not be changed unless their is societal benefit? The whole concept of a ‘social contract’ is derived from the idea that society and participation in society benefits the individual and not about what benefits individuals bring to society.

    If we took the concept of ‘societal benefits’ as a logical basis to explaining things then obviously allowing for divorce does NOT benefit society and thus would not be allowed.

    Neither would being a single parenthood and we probably would limit the distances that individuals can relocate to because that destroys family structure and undermines the very support that families provide individuals.

    The whole concept of ‘societal benefits’ as expressed by Rob was the whole basis for the Nazi regime and the concept of an Aryan Nation/Race.

    Not much of a leap from the concept of societal benefits and The Fatherland….

  16. Tom says:

    The studies have concluded that gay parents are just as good as straight parents – and sometimes better. Generally, you have to really want a child to get one as a gay couple. The legality of same-gender adoption is contested and confusing in many places. There are many studies out there saying that children of gay parents are no more likely to be gay than children of straight parents, that they’re just as well adjusted, and that their life chances are just as good. Studies on the U.S. Census looking at same-gender couples who live together and consider each other spouses show that gay couples and straight couples are very similar in everything – income, age, etc. The only studies that I have seen that show gay couples and gay parents as awful are from conservative, right-wing “think tanks” – not from universities and other non-partisan research facilities. Sure, there are plenty of left-wing “think tanks,” but you can skip over those and go directly to the American Psychological Association or the American Sociological Association and get great studies. It’s a falsehood that one man, one woman marriages provide better for their children. Especially in this economy, most women and men work now – parents are home as much regardless.

  17. Mauigirl says:

    Christopher, I totally agree. Human rights should not be at the mercy of the ignorant “majority vote.”

    Let’s hope Obama can appoint another Supreme Court justice (or two!) before this comes up for a vote there – as it inevitably will and must.

  18. okjimm says:

    hmmm, interesting stuff on the pages.

    //Man/Woman marriages result in ideally healthy babies // so if the babies are not healthy, neither is the marriage? or if they decide to adopt cats&dogs… it’s not marriage?

    aw, shit&whiskers! gimmee a break or gimmee a beer! Soza hetero couple who do not “plan” on having children…. shouldn’t be married?

    Frankly….. after my divorce… I am rather ‘anti-marriage’. The deal was… we waited five years to get a divorce so she could still get benefits while in grad school. And I think that is mostly the kind of equality the Gay community would like to enjoy….choice!! & ya, what Tao said.

  19. Trina says:

    word.

  20. Tarinax says:

    GB
    + at 11:23 am

    Wisdom prevails… for the moment. I’ve always found it interesting that just because someone disagrees with gay marriage that they are accused of “hate.” It is the most juvenile response to a dissenting opinion. I have three teenagers. I’ve heard the same response from them when they didn’t get to do whatever they wanted. “You just hate me!” It’s ridiculous. They know it isn’t true. Everything about my life with them confirms it. Fortunately, my kids always come around and recognize there’s a reason why they don’t get to do whatever feels good them all the time. My “vote” against their wishes isn’t hatred. It’s actually love. I wonder if the gay community will ever figure that out?

    MLIN
    + at 9:14 am

    If the voting majority systematically votes against gay marriage, independently of the sources of the campaigns funds, probably it reflects the fact that for the majority the definition of marriage should not change …
    Why to blame on the funds only? Isn’t it too simplistic to reduce it to one determinant? Isn’t it contradictory to respect ‘majority’ for all other stuff, but when it does not fit my own agenda, it is called ‘hate’?

    Couldn’t say it better myself. While admitting there are gay-bashers out there who are completely wrong in what they do, what gives gay people the right to apply the term “hatred” to anyone who opposes gay marriage? Answer: absolutely nothing.

    To be blunt, stop being martyrs. Majority rules in America. Always has. If gay marriage is accepted into law, I may not like it, but to go around labeling anyone against straight marriage as “straight-haters” would be idiotic.

    Joe in Colorado
    + at 9:53 am

    Another well thought out argument, Christopher. I think the Supreme Court must get involved because these referendums are an attack on the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. These referendums are clearly unconstitutional and scream to remedy.

    Amendment X

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

    Amendment XIV

    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    To Joe in Colorado:

    First, the referendums you refer to are covered by the 10th amendment, shown above, which delegates powers not in control of the federal government to the states or the people. The majority of people in Maine have stated that they do not want gay marriage to be legal. Not unconstitutional.

    Second, if gay marriage was on the books and was being stopped by the government, you’d have a viable argument for violation of the 14th amendment, but since it has not been defined as a privilege or immunity by law, it doesn’t apply in this case.

    Trying to get the supreme court to overturn the decisions of the majority is just moronic. The state spoke, and some people don’t like the answer. Too bad. This should have to go through normal political channels like everything else. This isn’t a special issue.

  21. Abby Peripatetic says:

    Imagine a state that outlawed marrying your sibling. Or outlawed marrying a child. Or multiple people. Oh, wait, there are. – Rob

    This is inflammatory rhetoric used by conservatives to try and attack gay and lesbian Americans who wish to marry their partner.

    So, I will deconstruct this idiot’s opening paragraph.

    1. Marry children
    – Children are legally defined as member of a minority and as such, cannot enter into a legal contract. Be it marriage, purchasing a house, car or a credit card.

    2. Marrying multiple people
    – Polygamy is illegal in all 50 states. Not permitted even by gay-hating Mormons.

    So, Rob, please take your stupidity to Little Green Footballs where such commentary is appreciated.

  22. HalfGay says:

    I think the lesson here is that money does have the power we complain it has and while we hope that truth will prevail … lies are seductive to people who do not have the motivation to seek out the truth. This is a civil rights issue and people are not pushing that into the media. Terms such as “equality” and “marriage” ignite passion in people. You have to call a spade a spade and this one is called a civil right.

  23. Pechanga says:

    As a straight but not narrow man, I have never been able to comprehend why so many straights are freaked out by gays marrying?

    If your marriage is on the rocks, don’t blame the gays for it.

    Get your shit together and stop looking for people to blame for your failings.

  24. brilliantmindbrokenbody says:

    It seems that many of the comments here are completely missing the point of the Supreme Court.

    Yes, the Supreme Court is supposed to be able to overrule the choices of the majority. It is deliberately set up as a check against the tyranny of the majority. If you look at the major Supreme Court cases, you’ll see that many of them overrule laws put in place by the majority and/or by Congress.

    The Supreme Court exists to correct injustices. The fact that the injustices are desired by the majority is not of concern. Anti-miscegenation laws, laws against homosexual sex acts, segregation laws – these were all struck down by Supreme Court. Not because the majority willed it, in fact the majority was staunchly against the Supreme Court ruling in most cases. No, these laws were thrown out because they violate the Constitution and the basic principles of justice that it enshrines.

    The 14th Amendment guarantees us the right to be treated equally by the law. Race, national origin, religion, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation are not factors that excuse ignoring the 14th Amendment. It is simple and absolute – you cannot treat one group of people, or one person, different from others.

    Hopefully, the Supreme Court will be able to keep in mind that their duty is to interpret the Constitution and strike down laws that contradict it, rather than bowing to the tide of people that are against gay marriage. It may take a while.

    ~Kali
    http://www.brilliantmindbrokenbody.wordpress.com

  25. michael says:

    I don t underrstand why it is that everyone who is against gay marriage isautomatically considered a bigot. I am a conservative to the greatest extent and I cannot imagine why anyone would say that gays should not be able to have civil unions, inherit property, and do anything that heterosexuals can do other than marry. The only reason I object to gay marriage is that there is no definitive information whatsoever to prove that homosexuality is genetic and not behaviorial. If that question is unresolved…responsible government cannot allow behavior which may in the long run hurt innocent parties like children. Marriage is not a legal right..it is..whether you like it or not..a legal privilege. I truly hope noone on the left or advocating for gays would say I am just lying or a bigot. I truly believe the issue needs to be vetted and if we as a society come to the conclusion there is no connection between homosexuality and behavior or enviroment then I will support it. But…until then…please give the benefit of the doubt to conservatives you are sincere.

  26. Anjie says:

    When I went to day care, there was a boy a bit younger than me who had “two mommies.” He was a happy kid and, minus some food allergies, also very healthy. He was social, and he knew how to treat others well or apologize when he did something wrong. He went to school and as far as I know he did fine in school–maybe even very well. Basically, there was nothing wrong with him that ever called attention to him or his parents.

    He, obviously, was not the biological product of his two mothers; half of his genes came from some male somewhere in the world. But his parents raised him well, taught him the right values, fed him right, and loved him. I don’t know how he’s doing now, but many children resulting from straight marriages have had much worse beginnings.

    So the idea that marriage is needed specifically for supporting a family, or continuing the human race, or whatever exactly your “societal benefit” argument is, may be true. But, who says that only straight couples can do any of this, or do it better? Sometimes LGBT couples can be better parents, and the matter of procreation can easily be solved by the abundance of gametes–both male and female genetically viable halves to a whole–in this world; the way in which they come together and form an embryo does not matter. Children are easy to make even without a married couple who have specific plans to reproduce together (think of all the unwanted children in the world given up for adoption–children are very easy to make). The hard part of a marriage involving children is raising them, and if one is a good parent, one is a good parent–sexual orientation has nothing to do with that.

    Just thought I would remind you of that, in case it’s not obvious enough.

  27. HalfGay says:

    Dear Michael: marrying used to be a union solely in the church. States took on the duty of making it a legal right to marry civilly so that things like chattel, immigration, children, etc could be accounted for. So, yes – it is a legal right that only heterosexual couples enjoy the benefit of.

    As far as your question as to biology … while there is no “gay gene” that has been identified just as the “hetero gene” has also not been identified or the “Hispanic gene” the question you may want to ask yourself is why you think sexuality is a “choice.” What influences you to believe this? And more importantly, why would it matter? Being gay is no doubt a trait of someone just as being straight is a trait of yours … but why the focus on it?

  28. Chad says:

    Yeah, America is the freest country in the world! Can’t even recognize the rights of homosexuals. Iceland puts you to shame! Stop lecturing everyone else about human rights and freedom!

  29. Angers me. I’m lucky to live in a city where pride is honored, moreso then other places (Toronto). I saw the cutest male parents of two adorable 2-year old twin boys the other day, it was just so… enlightening. Life is too short to be worrying so much about how to control others, when it comes to matters of the heart, everyone should be allowed to use theirs freely.

    Lindsay

    I gave you a shout out: http://twitter.com/lindsaylorusso

  30. Estacada says:

    I think for social and religious conservatives, their greatest fear is a Supreme Court ruling that to deny gay couples the same rights enjoyed by straight couples is unconstitutional, thus taking away from the last piece of power they have over an oppressed minority.

    But that day is coming. It may not be this year or even next but in my lifetime, gay and lesbians couples in all 50 states will be allowed to marry.

  31. my partner and i are so disappointed in this. after our BFGW (Big Fat Gay Wedding) last nov., we planned on making it “legal” in california, but never got the chance. all we’re asking for are some basic rights and protections. it’d be nice not to be taxed $350+/month on her benefits [tho i’m thankful i could (i was laid off in sept.) have her on them, a recent development] while my straight (ex)colleagues were not taxed at all on their spouse’s benefits. it’d also be nice if i could stop marking “single” on my taxes, considering we’re going on nine years together. it’s almost 2010, ppl. let’s get w/the program. one day we’re going to look back on all this and shake our heads with disgust. i cannot *wait* for that day.

  32. jenclinton says:

    //lies are seductive to people who do not have the motivation to seek out the truth//

    yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.

    this whole issue is such a disappointment.

    michael, if there IS no difference in biology… even if you say it’s a choice, or behavioral, or environmental, don’t you realize that it means that the gay population is the SAME as the straight population? we’re all people. there is no reason for the discrimination and dehumanizing.

  33. lea-lea says:

    The Olsen/Bois SCOTUS request for relief from Prop 8 is the only solution to ending the tyranny of institutionalized homophobia.

    Does anyone know where the case stands? Have the 80 or so cases for the SCOTUS session been determined already?

    If not this year, then next year. Don’t give up and don’t fret.

  34. Tarinax says:

    Estacada
    + at 3:03 pm

    I think for social and religious conservatives, their greatest fear is a Supreme Court ruling that to deny gay couples the same rights enjoyed by straight couples is unconstitutional, thus taking away from the last piece of power they have over an oppressed minority.

    But that day is coming. It may not be this year or even next but in my lifetime, gay and lesbians couples in all 50 states will be allowed to marry.

    Oppressed? Oh please. The question is put before the people in the form of a vote. These people are not having guns held to their heads and being ordered to vote “no” on the gay marriage issue. Their families, careers, property, or anything else they have is being threatened if they don’t vote the right way. If it were, that would be oppression, and I would agree with that statement. As it stands, the people of the state of Maine came to the polls and gave their opinions, as protected by the tenth amendment. That’s not oppression. That’s the American system of government.

    All of these comments about how gay people are oppressed, hated, and whatever else are all stemming from the fact that more people disagree with homosexuality than agree.

  35. Scott Dancer says:

    One of the best pieces I’ve recently read about prejudice is from Jim Cole, Ed.D.

    Cole writes:

    “With the changing demographics and social structure, educational settings and work places present both the urgent need and opportunity for reducing prejudices. Until now, most responses to reducing prejudices in these settings have been legal and thus they have not confronted the dynamics of the disorder. As one civil rights activist recently asked an audience, “Would you rather live in a land where discrimination is illegal, or would you rather live in a land where no one has a desire to discriminate?”

    Prejudices is a function to dehumanize people who are identifiably different in some way from the people whose perceptions are limited by the dysfunction we call prejudice.

    According to the superficial categories of those who are prejudiced is a disservice to those who are the targets of discrimination and a distortion of reality.

  36. Big Hank says:

    Maybe someone can help this old redneck understand how it is that gay Americans are the only minority in the good, Ole’ US of A who are constantly victimized by the ballot process?

    Sorry folks, but we can’t keep doing this to gay and lesbian Americans. It needs to stop.

  37. RJ says:

    It is a bigoted thing to espouse the opinion that Christians vote against gay-marriage because of hate.

    Given that there are different motives for not wanting to legislate in favor of gay-marriage: e.g. (1) hate (2) religious tradition, (3) belief in Bible as Scripture – for you to selectively highlight (1), without giving any coverage to (2) and (3) is a choice on your part.

    Let’s try to give reasons for your selectivity:
    (1) hatred against Christians
    (2) passion for your own cause
    (3) ignorance of other’s motives

    Either way, you’re playing the same game as the people you’re criticizing.

  38. Steven Harris says:

    This is hopefully a case of two steps forward, one step back. Surely prejudice cannot stay entrenched in law this way.

  39. Tiny Dancer says:

    I have no problem with God; it’s his followers that annoy the hell out of me.

    In any event, religion, be it Christian, Muslim, or Hindi, are none of my concern. However, when religious dogma informs the legislative process in the U.S., then I think we’re headed down the same path of 21st century Iran or Afghanistan. America isn’t a theocracy.

  40. A Supreme Court case to legalize gay marriage nationwide?! Just hearing that makes me want to vomit. I support efforts to legalize gay marriage but the way that it’s been done so far in a lot of cases through the courts is just the wrong way to do it. Judges are there to interpret the law, not make it themselves. Sure, it may seem better in the short-run as a fast-track to more legal rights now, but everyone, gay, straight, black, white, male or female, benefits from having a proper safeguard to liberty that is the US Constitution. And the more judges are allowed to deviate from that the more we lose of that protection.

    First off, while no state has legalized it through the ballot yet, some states have legalized it through legislature and it is legal throughout most of New England now. It is way too early for you to be touting the court of last resort to do the heavy lifting for you. (And they probably wouldn’t since a 5-4 majority of them are strict constructionist.) You say you’re 0-for-31, what the heck does that mean? You only have to win something ONCE for it to work, not a majority of times.

    EX:
    Similar cases to Brown v. Board of Ed were brought 12 times and none of them made it. So they were 0-12 before they won ONCE, which was what mattered.

    The amendment to lower the voting age to 18 was proposed EVERY YEAR from the end of WW2 to 1971 when it passed. So they were 0-25.

    Another example, gay rights initiatives in the 1970s were losing left and right before the Briggs Initiative was defeated in California, which was a historical turning point.

    You see my point here? How many times you lose is IRRELEVANT. You only have to win once. And the vote has been closer in the past couple years. California voted on gay marriage in 2000 and 2008 and lost both times – but the 2008 vote was closer. I can feel a victory coming for you guys soon.

    So you’ve lost a few times and you’re talking of throwing in the towel on the whole ballot process?! Harvey Milk should say “shame on you!”

  41. Mike says:

    voice of the people

  42. Drew says:

    Keep one thought in mind.

    When bigots die they take they prejudices to the grave with them. One day, prejudice against gays will be as antiquated as prejudice against African Americans or the disabled.

  43. sortofpsychic says:

    I’ve never understood how gays marrying can hurt anyone else’s marriage. Why should it matter? The whole issue is just so stupid.

  44. aikusen says:

    This is just ridiculous, but it’s typical. Since most of the money came from religious organizations (or organizations pretending to not be religious), this proves that they don’t understand the concept of separation of church (religion) and state. That’s why I ditched Christianity. (That and nothing they claimed was true made sense.)

  45. retahyajyajav says:

    Drew – Good point.

    In 2009, when you see a Klansman prancing around in his pointed hat and robe, chanting “white people’s rights!,” they look like anachronisms from a 1950’s newsreel.

    I hope one day the gay-haters all drop dead and face their maker and have to account for their bigotry.

  46. Brian says:

    purecommonsense, although I am not exactly certain, I think the 31-0 figure means that in all 31 of the states in which the issue of gay marriage was brought to the popular vote, a constitutional amendment was passed making gay marriage illegal. In this context, “winning once” would make gay marriage legal in only one state.

  47. justburn says:

    Voting to prevent the legislature from creating such a law in the first place is one thing. But voting to repeal a fundamental right that has already been granted is just ridiculous.

  48. gitanorumano says:

    Marriage should be what it is a legal agreement between two adult persons as how to deal with their material goods. It is not a religious issue and, shouldn’t be treated as such. Treating it as a religious issue treads on running counter to the separation of church and state. The only way this can be resolved is for the for the Supreme Court to declare that this is not a religious issue. Marriage is nothing more than a legal contract, plain and simple.

  49. Conejo1982 says:

    Repealing gay marriage in Maine was like porn for the Bible thumpers.

    The Catholics dumped more than $2 million into the repeal effort and NoM poured something like $2.4 million into the effort.

    I’m sure Maggie Gallagher had her extra large dildo rammed up her peesh until the sun came up today.

  50. HalfGay says:

    One of the Supreme Courts Duties is to protect the minority from the majority …

  51. Matteo says:

    You win some, you lose some and while Maine is bitter, like Christopher says, the path to marriage equality will be through the Supreme Court, where I believe the right to marry will be upheld and all of the homophobic referendums will be struck down.

    Now, boys and girls, let’s look at what we won last night! A record number of gays and lesbians were elected to political office.

    Some highlights from Tuesday night returns:

    1. Annise Parker advanced to a runoff in her race to become the next mayor of Houston.

    2. Charles Pugh will become Detroit’s first openly gay city councilmember after finishing first among 18 candidates for 9 at-large seats. Placing first also means Pugh will become city council president.

    3. Steve Kornell won his race for the St. Petersburg, Fla. City Council, becoming the first openly LGBT candidate to do so.

    4. Sandra Kurt overcame anti-gay attacks to become the first openly LGBT member of the Akron, Ohio City Council.

    5. Simone Bell advanced to a runoff election in her race for the Georgia State House of Representatives. Bell will become the country’s first openly lesbian African-American state legislator if she wins her runoff election.

    6. Eric Resnick won a seat on the Canton, Ohio school board.

    7. Mark Kleinschmidt was elected mayor of Chapel Hill, N.C.

  52. Pirate says:

    This whole topic over gay marriage is absolutely-fucking-ridiculous.

    I’m sorry, but I shouldn’t have to vote on the right of Gay Marriage in a country which already promises me in the constitution equality and freedom. If gay marriage cannot be allowed, then neither can the populations of mentally retarded people, those with disorders such as OCD or ADD, or whites, blacks, and Asians for the matter.

    Fucking religion needs to wake up and realize those who are gay are not gay by choice, just like those born mentally retarded or with any disorder for the matter.

    Wake the fuck up America, this is the country of choice and freedom, now start acting like it and give those who deserve their freedoms as well. More than likely, those voting no on this already express many freedoms that others aren’t granted, based alone on races, sexes, and natural advantages of our political system.

    If you have your freedoms, then they should have theirs. Wake, the fuck, UP.

  53. Pirate says:

    Not to mention that the vast majority of notions, (if not all of the views on gay marriage) come from the words of the Bible and Religion.

    Our country states in it’s own laws the premises of Separation of Church and State, and yet here we are, picking political candidates based on hot buttons such as gay marriage and abortion. While some are just disgusted by the thought of these, the majority of notions and slants on these come from religion. Why can a country state it separates church and religion from all political and ethical matters rely so heavily on these same sects to decide the way their country goes?

    This country has changed drastically since the founding fathers wrote the constitution, and today’s America is not the country they had in mind. Everyone needs to step back and ACTUALLY keep their opinions on religion separate from ethical and political matters.

    If you have the freedom to choose your own religion, then allow others to have that same freedom. With granting this freedom comes your own ability to keep your religion private and separate from the matters of the country, as we cannot honestly try and force our religious views on the rest of the world. Those people were called Nazis, for anyone who doesn’t realize this.

    Practice your own religion freely and faithfully, and rely on it all you please. But please, don’t force our entire country to follow your views. I was raised Christian, was extremely faithful for a long time, and then gave up on the idea of Christianity as I saw it wasn’t what I’d thought it was.

    No matter what religion you’re from, God is a loving God. He doesn’t discriminate or hate, as much as your Bible tells you different. If God has created us, then how can he deny us our rights based on the way he’s formed us? Those who think gay is a choice, once again, are wrong. You cannot pray the gay away, and you cannot pray mental retardation away, both aspects of which you’re born with, and stand no chance of changing. That’s all

  54. VicoDANIEL says:

    The Catholic Diocese in Maine spent itself into bankruptcy in order to financially back Ref One.

    They sold buildings, closed churches, whined to the National church for donations, and all of it was done with tax exemption.

    There, are your Christian values, folks.

    Maine is a fairly poor state. Outside of Portland, much of it is no different from Appalachia. People live in trailers and heat them with wood. Yet, the Catholic church in Maine saw repealing gay marriage as their numero uno priority and not helping Mainers who are poor and suffering.

    If you’re starting to get an ugly picture of modern Catholicism in the U.S., good. Then you’re paying attention.

    vicodaniel1987@yahoo.com

  55. I'm Joseph says:

    It’s true god is all loving and has no hate in him and had created all men equal.

    But as the gentleman Pirate stated, all should be free to choose what he wants to be, and your views and your opinion should not be force on others to accept.

    Regardless of the laws of man and the ways of men whether we wish to fight for those rights under human rights or civil would make no defference has there is not, there can not or will not be any law above that of him above, no matter which direction we choose to live, as my god is all loving.

    Therefore if those who are considered of being homophobic and the such as hater, should not force their views on gays, then under those same law that governs each man, be it human or civil, then gays must not force others to accept them. we live under the power of democracy. No one should be force to accept that which goes against his morals, faith or belief’s.

    Then how would a balance be reach..if gays wants to be gays let them form thier own community, they do it anyway man has the choce to do has he will and should be free from harm. But don’t force what you want for you on other’s and others will not force what they want on you.

    On the part of wanting children, they have not clone them yet nor use DNA to create them yet, then how does god give children to the world, how do human’s reproduce, then something must be wrong on that part. And where people who naturally can’t produce because of age or illness or she was born that way.

    That alone cannot justified why gay should have other people babies, does a gay have a sperm count, can a lesbian reproduce, then the answers to all your question is in the question itself.

    Yes they should have their own country if you like but let them figure out between them how man was created to live in earth when you see children, gays and lesbian am speaking of here for the love of Christ is to love all men and none should be harm by another has nothing justify war…

  56. In twenty years, kids are going to view all this anti-gay nonsense the same way kids of the past thirty years view Jim Crow laws and segregation.

  57. TAO says:

    The sad reality of this country is, if it wasn’t for the Supreme Court and Brown vs. The Board of Education where do you believe civil rights would be in the United States today?

    If it wasn’t for LBJ realizing that his mark on history was fading fast and wanting so much to leave a mark do you really believe the Civil Rights Act would have passed?

    Gay Marriage, Gay Rights, Gay Equality is an absolutely great issue for the social conservatives, because its the only thing they have that affects a few people that they can mobilize just enough people to block it everytime. Its basically all they have left to remain viable (of course for some reason destroying halloween seems to have picked up alot of interest with this bunch now).

    A few years back, gay marriage was fought because marriage was biblical and I find it odd that no one brings that up now. Now, we are discussing marriage within a concept of ‘societal needs’ and ‘whats best for children’ type of crap.

    Of course when you claim that ‘marriage’ is a religious affair then you run into the issue of separation of church and state and that by reckonizing ‘marriage’ the government is in effect overstepping the boundaries: They should only be allowed to reckonize hetrosexual civil unions.

    Its time to accept the fact that society evolves, we no longer need to breed like rabbits because of a high infant mortality issue or because we need the labor to till the fields.

    The issue of whether or not gay couples make good parents or that children need a mother and a father doesn’t fly any longer when you look at the percentage of children being raised by single parents.

    If you believe in individualism, and that this country is all about personal freedom, and that all men are created equal then its time to recognize gay marriage.

    If you are worried about ‘societal values’ and all of that then do realize that your battle is against hetrosexual divorce not stopping gays from marrying.

    It has nothing to do with ones own beliefs or values, it has to do with what you believe America stands for. You live your life by your own beliefs and values (in this case, if you do not believe in gay marriage then don’t be gay and don’t get married) but you live in a country that must respect each and every individuals rights to hold and cherish the same rights that others members of the country have.

    Real simple, “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.”

    Now, don’t go into the stupidity of gay marriage will lead to legalizing beastiality or something like that because laws against acts like this are applied equality across the board for all citizens.

    Gay marriage is simply saying since we recognize our vows, our commitments, and our covenants in our marriage we will honor you will allowing you the same in your marriage.

    We outlaw polygamy both hetrosexual and homosexual so that is not the same either…

    There is no valid argument against gay marriage that is not backwards looking, ignorant, and selfishly fearful.

    Its that simple.

  58. Adirondacky says:

    Tao is so correct. Without Brown, I can’t imagine what America would be like. There wouldn’t be a President Obama. I hope the matter of marriage is heard by the High Court. I’m tired of seeing gay Americans treated by stray dogs by this country. It’s offensive and it’s un-American.

  59. pastormack says:

    Surely if something as morally repugnant as prostitution can be left up to individual states, surely an issue as divisive as gay marriage can as well? Like abortion, this is a leftist agenda that some are trying to force down the country’s throat before it is ready. If you actually want gay marriage to be accepted and, eventually, part of the American fabric, then be patient. The tide is certainly turning (I find this unfortunate), but rushing in (the habit of fools) will backfire as it has with Roe v. Wade. The Civil Rights act has not backfired because the country was largely prepared for that kind of social change. We are not there yet on gay marriage. Conversation and convincing work better than force, which is what a federal mandate would amount to in this case.

  60. Prairiedog says:

    The religious right should be afraid, very afraid, because this is the man who will bring the issue of gay marriage to the US Supreme Court:

    “People’s personal views of the appropriateness of same-sex relationships naturally influence their views of our lawsuit. However, it is important to remember that the legal question does not, and under our Constitution cannot, depend on people’s personal preferences. The constitutional issue is quite simple. The Supreme Court repeatedly has held that the right to marry the person of your choice is a fundamental human right guaranteed by the equal-protection and due-process clauses of the Constitution.” — attorney David Boies, who, as a Christian, disagrees that “same-sex marriages are inconsistent with religious teachings”

  61. jenclinton says:

    In response to:

    //Therefore if those who are considered of being homophobic and the such as hater, should not force their views on gays, then under those same law that governs each man, be it human or civil, then gays must not force others to accept them.//

    I’d like to point out the Cole quote from before,
    “Would you rather live in a land where discrimination is illegal, or would you rather live in a land where no one has a desire to discriminate?”

    Gay people shouldn’t HAVE to force anyone to accept them. We shouldn’t be focusing so much on one trait… really see people for who they are and not who they love. See that they CAN love. It seems to be an ability that some of us, too many of us, are struggling with.

  62. MacDaddy says:

    Very good post and comments.

    I was in a conversation with a bunch of guys at a bar recently. One kept saying “the gays.” I called him on it. I said “why can’t it be this one guy? Does that one guy have to represent all gays?”

    He went off and out of his head talking about all the bad things gay do: cruise the community looking for young boys to have sex with, break up perfect marriages, and claims that, if they have their way, they’ll be teaching about gay sex to 5th graders in school.

    As he talked, I put my organizing hat on and put some things together. He is Catholic. Catholics hate gays. They are behind a lot of the fights to keep gay marriage from happening. They provide a lot of money to anti-gay organizations and events.

    I don’t mean to blame, but sometimes it’s good to know the genesis of people’s statements or behavior.

  63. After having lived three score and twenty, a lawyer had to explain to me WHY gays want to get married.

    I was pretty disappointed that it’s a money matter. Married couples have some money advantages over two single people.

    Long ago, old people in America started living together without marriage BECAUSE you had to give up your Social Security checks, if you re-married. It didn’t take long to make THAT decision.

    Most of the people I know, being seniors, are NOT married. How American that it turns out to be more advantageous to get married. So it’s not a moral issue or a religious issue or even a social issue; it’s a money issue.

  64. ultragreen says:

    14th Amendment: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” (quoted from above)

    The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution restricts the ability of the states to discriminate against any group of citizens. By making marriage among heterosexuals legal, while making marriage among homosexuals illegal, the states are violating equal protection under the law.

    Some respondents have stated that legalized marriage is a “privilege,” rather than a “right.” Therefore, by their reasoning, it is okay to discriminate against homosexuals and pass laws that restrict the legalization of gay marriage. However, the 14th Amendment clearly states that “no state shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States . . . .” Because both gay and straight couples are U.S. citizens who pay taxes, vote, sit on juries, etc., they are entitled to the same rights. All of these other arguments (“gay marriage isn’t sanctified by God,” “gay marriage doesn’t produce children,” etc.) have no relevance to the 14th Amendment and other provisions of the U.S. Constitution, and they can’t be used to deny fundamental constitutional rights.

    Personally, I find Rob’s argument against legalization of homosexual marriage rather laughable. Because we live in an overpopulated world with limited resources, what’s beneficial about bringing more children into this world? If this trend continues, we can look forward to mass starvation, social chaos, and a devastated planet. A childless marriage, whether gay or straight, is surely more beneficial to society than harmful at the present time.

  65. Conserve says:

    I don’t you think you quite understand, if our government is truly by the people…then the majority should always have the final word.

    Legislation from a court bench takes the power away from the people. The people in America need more power now more then ever, the more we turn control over to the government the less freedom we’ll have. Freedom cannot ever exist in a world where government rules, instead of protects.

    I find it interesting that whenever any agenda, is not supported by the majority, everyone cries bigotry and runs to the courts for civil rights action. Typical of leftist thinking.

    The courts in America are to merely interpret the law, not write it. That is the job of the legislation, they write the law, if you really want this changed, then run for congress and try to write the law.

    Lastly, I think that an 0-31 record pretty much gives you an idea of how the Majority of America feels about this.

  66. libhomo says:

    Wow, lot’s of homophobic trolls popped out of nowhere for this post. You even got a couple of concern trolls.

  67. Idaho Librul says:

    “I don’t you think you quite understand, if our government is truly by the people…then the majority should always have the final word.”

    Converse, I think what you don’t understand could fill all the oceans on earth.

    If the “majority” said it’s OK to kill black people, then according to your (il)logic, it would be the final word.

    If the “majority” said it’s OK for men to rape women, then according to your (il)logic, it would be the final word.

    Try to think before using your keyboard. Your comments just make you look like a horse’s ass.

  68. Pirate says:

    I agree with the poster above me. Where Conserve get’s off on stating “typical leftist thinking,” he contradicts his exact post of “typical conservative thinking.” No need to be throwing stones when this is obviously a debate, either debate the topic at hand or shut the fuck up. And yes, I mean that.

    As a country where the power of the people rules, that means ALL people, not just a select majority of people. Argue the meaning of Democracy if you’d like, you’ll still be left in the past. As stated above, our country already prohibits this in the 14th amendment, and therefore should already be legalized in all states as of now.

    Keep your religious views out of this please, build our country with your heart and head, not your tainted notions that some pie-in-the-sky book has engraved to your soul.

    And I understand you’ll find that offensive, but then you’ll understand how offensive it is for you to push those views on me when they’re not MY VIEWS. You don’t think your religion is bullshit, I do. You think my views on marriage are bullshit, I don’t. But I’ll let you have faith and practice in your religion all you want, because I grant you the freedom to do so as a human being, and as an individual who can live his life and express himself without others stripping him of those rights. All I ask is for you to consider giving those same rights to people born of the same breed as you, completely equal, and just as deserving of the same freedoms; Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

  69. Fran says:

    I hate this process & can’t believe 31 states mustered up enough fear & loathing to vote down equal rights.

    But I have to share this story…. a few years ago when Oregon was in the thick of the gay marriage vote, A Corvallis Oregon courthouse refused to perform hetero marriages, until they could also perform gay marriages- otherwise it was discriminatory & against state laws!

  70. Tyler says:

    I was really heartbroken by this. Not because I’m desperately seeking approval, but because I expected so much more from Maine. I always saw New England as an example of the “real” America. People who were educated, free thinking and far from the influence of hateful bigotry and heartless religious organizations. I think that the Churches of America have poured millions of dollars into fighting against equality, instead of helping those in need. Which seems more christian?
    I had a soft spot in my heart for Maine. It’s hard to love a place that refuses to love you back. Or, at the very least, acknowledge a civil right (especially when it has no real effect on the lives of heterosexuals or their families). It is a very hard thing to accept, the judgement and presumptions of those who do not walk in your shoes. Eventually, it hits home for every gay person. Perhaps the worst part is having to live with the consequences of your neighbor’s decision, one that history will eventually condemn.

  71. JollyRoger says:

    I believe you’re right. This is not an issue that should be decided by voters, any more than interracial marriage should be. This is a human rights issue and it is going to have to be addressed as such.

    It’s time to get Government out of the business of defining marriage anyway. Let consenting adults come to whatever arrangements they may want to by way of the civil commitment. Let “marriage” belong to whoever wants to call it that.

  72. JollyRoger says:

    I don’t you think you quite understand, if our government is truly by the people…then the majority should always have the final word.

    You mean like they used to do down in Mississippi, right? There’s a little problem with that, no?

    Nah…. you’re too stupid to understand that the “tyranny of the majority” was rightly feared by our Founders, almost none of who were Christians. There’s a reason for that; maybe you should pull your head out of Beck’s ass and do some studying.

  73. jimmy says:

    @Conserve – No high court, be it a state supreme court or the SCOTUS, has ever written a law. Courts do not legislate, they make rulings on cases argued before them. Sometimes laws are enacted that are unconstitutional, like DOMA, and those laws can be challenged in court. If the Supreme Court rules a law unconstitutional, then it is the constitution that has been vindicated. This system has serves us pretty well. We, as a people, have decided that our constitution, not a mob, has the final word.

    But, of course, you knew that.

  74. smilz says:

    l love that]
    smilz

  75. Pingback: Democralypse Now » Psyche! Maine Voters Decide Not To Give The Gays Equal Rights After All

  76. warlock6 says:

    i do not understand gay marriages. I have nothing against gays. they are welcome to live together and live as they want. but a marriage… what for? to be a wife and a husband? hm…

  77. cpyouth says:

    Isn’t it best to let the country vote for what it wants? It may not end the way you want it to, but a lot of votes don’t end the way I want them to either. That’s just how America works.

  78. Dale L. Suyeishi says:

    The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution is the pillar of the legal argument in favor of granting gay marriage and eliminating all of these crazy state laws that prevent same-gender couples from having the same rights we enjoy and take for granted.

    Should the Supreme Court decide against marriage, it would mean the court is ignoring the 14th and as such, then I believe a compelling argument can be made that gay and lesbian Americans should not be forced to pay Federal income tax.

    Such a ruling means the High Court created a special group of second class citizens and the full breadth and scope of the Constitution does not apply to them as American citizens. This is what the Apartheid government did to people of color.

    A slippery slope and one I don’t think the Judges will want to engage.

  79. joost says:

    I think there are a lot of latent homosexual men on this thread posting about their dislike of gays.

    These are the most dangerous type of homophobe.

    Remember the serial killer John Wayne Gacy? He picked up and butchered dozens of young men and buried them in his basement. He was profoundly homophobic and a psychopth to boot.

  80. Mets Fan says:

    Man, there are some real nutcases posting on this thread.

    This is precisely why the classification of “LGBT” needed to be added to the Federal hate crimes statute.

  81. Jeff says:

    I am not a proponent of gay marriage, but I would be fine with leaving it up to the states. This, of course, is not good enough for some. Each side of this debate has no use for compromise.

  82. lea-lea says:

    Compromise on civil and human rights?

    Are you joking, Jeff? LGBT Americans are the only group who are enthusiastically discriminated against by the ruling majority. It has to stop.

  83. Pingback: Don’t Call it a Comeback « We Dare Defend Our Rights

  84. Jeff says:

    @lea-lea:

    To suggest that LGBT Americans are “enthusiastically discriminated against” is lunacy. Go to Iran. I don’t see LGBT Americans being denied access to doctors, education, employment, public transportation, banking, food, and material goods. The media and pop culture give LGBT Americans enthusiastic praise on a daily basis. Being denied the right to marry is not wholesale discrimination by any means. I am merely suggesting that the states should handle this issue. Some states would legalize it and others wouldn’t. I see that as a compromise between the opposing ideological absolutes.

  85. HalfGay says:

    The court in California suggested we take the government out of marriage completely …. not a bad idea.

  86. imissamerica says:

    Silly me, I was under the impression that ‘separate but equal’ applied to all people and institutions. But then again, that makes the erroneous assumption that gays and lesbians are afforded the same constitutional protections as everyone else.

  87. mbmdl says:

    Dale L. Suyeishi – I think your idea is a flawless example of logic at its best. If gay and lesbian couples are not allowed to marry, then they are legally second class citizens which is tantamount to institutionalized oppression and they should be exempted from having to pay income taxes because they can’t take full advantages of the rights provided by the United States Constitution.

  88. ultragreen says:

    Conserve: “I don’t you think you quite understand, if our government is truly by the people…then the majority should always have the final word.”

    We have a democratic republic rather than a pure democracy, where there is a division of power between three branches of government. This means that the majority don’t necessarily have the final word, especially when they pass laws that infringe on the constitutional rights of minorities. It appears that YOU are the person who doesn’t understand what kind of government we have.

    Conserve: “The people in America need more power now more then ever, the more we turn control over to the government the less freedom we’ll have. Freedom cannot ever exist in a world where government rules, instead of protects.”

    People in America don’t agree with each other on many issues; you make it sound like they all have the same opinion on everything. In this Maine referendum and similar referendums in other states, the majority have decided to take away some of the constitutional rights of a minority, thereby reducing the freedom of this minority. Therefore, the judicial branch of government has an obligation to uphold the constitutional rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

    The irony of the situation is this: By granting homosexual people the legal right to marry each other, this in no way reduces the constitutional rights or freedom of the majority. The enemies of human freedom, in this case, is not the judicial branch of government, but rather the majority of voters who have passed these anti-gay marriage referendums. Tyranny is not a monopoly of government; sometimes, tyranny develops from the ignorance or maliciousness of the people themselves. They are not angelic beings.

    Conserve: ” . . . everyone cries bigotry and runs to the courts for civil rights action. Typical of leftist thinking.”

    Conservatives never “run to the courts” to promote their agenda? That’s news to me.

    American history is filled with examples of bigotry: enslavement of blacks, denial of women of the right to vote, concentration camps for Japanese-Americans during World War II, extermination of Amerindians and seizure of their land across a whole continent, etc. You really need to get your head out of the sand.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s