Reader comments
Gay marriage foes claim victory in Maine

Page:
1
2
Next >

The Deuce | 12:21 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009

Can we please grant same sex couples the rights and legal protection they need to live their lives within the definition of a civil union or domestic partnership and quit fighting over the definition of marriage. We can never define a camel as a horse, even though they both have 4 legs. If this fight is about legal rights and protection we can resolve this quickly. A definition only describes the parties involved in the union. Leave "marriage" the term for a man and a woman and leave "Domestic Partnership" or "Civil Union" for same-sex couples. This is not separate but equal under the law. No one definition is above or below the other. These definitions simply describe the parties involved. We as a nation have so much more to focus on. If this is about the civil rights explain to me why this cannot be done. There are so many more important issues out there that need our attention and involvement. Let's keeo level heads and be objective about this issue and resolve this. I don't want to see this on another ballot.

Rick from California | 12:41 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009

Thank our founding fathers for giving us Democracy. The will of the people should always be upheld. The majority rules. Maybe someday Gay marriage will win. But not now.

Homosexuality is not a gender, not a Religion, and not a Race. Homosexuality is a LIFESTYLE... a lifestyle that is offensive to the majority of Americans. As far as the Military, allowing homosexuals in the Service is like letting a fox sleep in the hen house.

Obvious Questions! | 1:23 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009

Who will these pro gay people attack now? Not too many Mormons in Maine! Who will they try to silence, intimidate and shout down? Whose buildings will they deface now? Who will they "boycott" now?

Comments continue below

The Count | 1:33 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009

It is my understanding this now makes 31 States who have had referendums (or Constitutional Amendments) submitted to the voting public to authorize legalization of Gay Marriages. So far, no State has approved Gay Marriage via the statewide referendum. It appears to me this approach is not working in favor of the Gay-Lesbian community.

Shocked, speechless | 2:03 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009

I'm surprised their has not been an article about referendum 71 in washington state that voted to allow homosexual couples every single right a marriage has except it's not called marriage. Just passed today..... That's right, it's now legal in Washington state!

Pagan | 5:18 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009

Gay marriage foes ALWAYS claim victory. Even while there are still 5 states that allow gay marriage.

This is a setback but let's be real, the battle is not over.

Congradulations to those who claim to 'defend' marriage.

Once again, there are americans who cannot marry the one they love.

get a clue | 5:43 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009

"...same-sex marriage is being foisted on states by judges or lawmakers over the will of the public."

"...voters had torpedoed a gay-marriage law enacted by a legislature."

In other words, get a clue judges, lawmakers and legislatures. The will of the public is we don't want you forcing these changes on us.

Anonymous | 5:48 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009

How sad.

This is the way it should be: | 6:26 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009

It should be up to the people to vote on such a crucial issue - not up to the courts or the legislature. Do I fear majority tyranny? No. The federal constitutional protections for the minority that are in the constitution itself are sufficient. Freedom of speech, the free exercise of religion, the right to bear arms are but some of the special protected rights of the constitution - there is no special protection for the right to marry. When there is no special protection in the constitution it is left up to a vote and as is seen in all 30 states that have put this up to a popular voge gay marriage has lost that vote.

Democratic societies determine what is right and wrong through voting. If we didn't make such decisions there would be no laws. We think it is wrong to speed so we create a law. We think incest is wrong so we create a law outlawing it. We think gay marriage is wrong so we prohibit it. Of course society's vote on what is right and wrong is not always what is actually right or wrong but that is how our society works.

Doodles | 6:48 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009

What I like the most is that this was an election, not a judge, not a legislature, but a regular election, like the election in California. Let's talk about democracy and elections, the role of a majority, the mandate given by an election.

I am pleased that this was put to the general population instead of decided by special interest groups

Let's be civil about this | 7:00 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009

It was a vote fair and square. There need not be any intimidation, harrassment or violence by either side. Constitutionally marriage is not a protected right so it is left up to the people to decide.

Once violence replaces peaceful civil discourse we have lost something great - the ability to compete in the marketplace of ideas and upon winning or losing remember that our opponents are still our neighbors. Though we may disagree on a very deeply felt issue there can still be kindness and respect shown. Often we do not understand one another's viewpoint clearly but we have much more in common than not.

Or am I wrong?

Albemar | 7:06 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009

Disappointing: YES, Shocking: NO

But that is okay, they will be back again, and again, and again...

Not today, maybe not tomorrow, but eventually Love, Fairness, Equality, Compassion will win out over Discrimination.

Looking at the numbers, the colleges and larger metro areas, "Equality for All" did exceptionally well. It is just a matter of time for older voters to die off and younger fair minded voters to have their say.

Gratefully, I would prefer to be on the side of fairness and love than knowing I promoted/supported discrimination against my fellow human being.

Anonymous | 7:21 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009

To "The Count", I am not gay, but I see the train rolling down the tracks. Gay marriage will happen in time. Things are changing. But someone explain, how does gay marriage or not change reality or affect my marriage? Gay people will form relationships with or without it. SO what is the point in denying it? Kind of like sticking your head in the sand and saying gay relationships don't exist. The reality is, they do.

Comprise Proposed | 7:22 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009

I am willing to compromise on the term of civil union but there is a catch. The only ones recognized by the federal, state, and local governments are civil unions. There is to be no grandfather clause and any one who has a marriage license must apply for and receive a civil union one. A marriage certificate is only good in the church it was issued in. All the rights and responsibilities are only conferred upon those that hold a civil union document. A clergy member can issue a marriage certificate and sign it but not a civil union one. You can have any number of marriage agreements/certificates but only one civil union one. These are the conditions I offer to you. That simple.

RE: Rick from California | 7:28 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009

Heterosexuality is not a LIFESTYLE. It is who you love, your family, your core being. Your wife and children are not simply your "lifestyle choice".

If you cannot have enough common sense to understand this for yourself, it is no wonder you cannot understand the same for another fellow human being.

RE: The Deuce | 7:39 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009

Likewise, if blacks can just use those water fountains and whites these water fountains everyone could get along so well...

The truth of the matter, exemplified by Washington States Referendum 71, this is really about "Superiority" and "Privilege". How dare Gays & Lesbians think they are equal with others and deserve to be treated equally.

Religious conservatives feel that their religion makes them better than other human beings and are offended that Gays & Lesbians would be recognized equal with them. Heterosexuals are superior, just ask their Gods.

When religion teaches you that your fellow human being should have no civil rights, no protections that are afforded yourselves, it questions the genuineness of so-called teachings of "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you".

Anonymous | 7:50 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009

The Caravan moves on...

Gay Marriage will happen, once it wouldn't even have been on the ballot to begin with, now it's getting closer and closer to a vote.

@The Deuce | 7:52 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009

Thank you for a rational post!

"Marriage" has been defined for thousands of years as unions between men and women. It is a religious term in this context. Unions formed through civil authority, outside of a church setting, are civil unions. Even though this distinction exists, our society has referred to both as "marriage" in spite of the inaccuracy.

Your suggestions would allow religions to adhere to their moral beliefs, protect the separation of Church and State, and allow a segment of the population that feels their rights have been denied the opportunity to have access to that protection.

"We can never define a camel as a horse, even though they both have 4 legs."

This statement gets to the crux of the matter. The fact that the issue is referred to as "gay marriage" implies that the overall effort is to change the thousands-year-old definition of the word "marriage." If the issue is for gays to gain the ability to join together and have protection for that union under the law, then the idea of civil unions is definitely a possibility. If it's to force religion to accept a new definition, then the conflict continues.

Anonymous | 7:53 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009

The Catholic Church in Maine took up special collections during Masses to donate to the Yes on 1 campaign.

@This is the way . . . |6:28 am | 8:08 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009

Try the Ninth Amendment. You know -- the one that says there are rights retained by the people which are not enumerated (spelled out) in the Constitution. You'll find the answer to your comment there. AND Constitutional protections trump votes.

Anonymous | 8:17 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009

Congratulations Maine.

Has anyone blamed the Mormons yet?

Not in favor | 8:34 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009

Interesting how this issue mirrors the equal rights amendment of the 1970s. In that case, the media, Hollywood, and legislatures were all campaigning very hard to get this passed. However, when it came to a VOTE BY THE PEOPLE, it was voted down. It seems to me the same thing is happening here. May it always be so that the will of the people is followed.

Californian #1@94131 | 8:48 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009

** "Gay marriage foes ALWAYS claim victory. Even while there are still 5 states that allow gay marriage." **

And as you read in the article, every single one of those states had same-sex "marriage" forced on it by a court or a legislature. Not one of those states actually had an election in which the people had a voice. Talk about a tiny minority dictating to the entire citizenry.... When the will of the people has been expressed, the results have always been the same.

The same thing happened in California as in Maine. A few politicians kowtowing to a small special interest group tried to redefine an institution that has been specifically defined by both civil and religious societies for thousands of years. And the PEOPLE took back two precious things that the court or legislature tried to steal: the definition of marriage itself and the people's right to decide.

kfm6 | 8:55 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009

Here is my take on the issue: No one has the civil right to marry whomever they want. Laws and restrictions are in place that prevent people from marrying close relatives, persons under the age of consent, a person of the same sex, and persons who are already married. As long as a marriage fits within the definition the state has set forth, though, everyone has the right to marry. The approach in California and now in Maine has been to alter the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, and so far, the majority of society (albeit a slim majority) has voted to uphold the traditional definition of marriage. Perhaps a more effective way for gay couples to gain the same priviledges afforded to married couples would be to abandon the effort to alter the definition of marriage and seek to expand the benefits afforded married couples to domestic partnerships or civil unions.

California #1@94131 | 9:04 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009

** "Gay Marriage will happen, once it wouldn't even have been on the ballot to begin with, now it's getting closer and closer to a vote." **

Yeah, it IS getting closer to a vote. It already HAS been put to a vote in 31 states, and in every single one of those states where the PEOPLE have been given a voice, same-sex "marriage" has been rejected.

What's Love Got to Do With It? | 9:29 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009

@Pagan - "Once again, there are americans who cannot marry the one they love. "

Love (if in fact love exists) is irrelevant in regards to marriage. The law does not recognize it's existence. Being in love is not a sufficient condition to create a marriage nor is absence of love sufficient to end a marriage.

Moved to Maryland | 9:44 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009

Somehow, the Mormons will get blamed for the thing in Maine.

Re: @This is the way....8:08 | 9:45 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009

I do not think the framers of the constitution even comprehended the idea of gay marriage. Therefore, in order for the ninth to protect rights that are not enumerated in the constitution they must have been rights prior to the adoption of the constitution. The language says "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In order for the right of gay marriage to have been retained by the people it had to be a right at the time the constitution was adopted, right? Was it a right when the constitution was adopted? My guess is no.

Constitutional protections do trump votes. Gay marriage is not constitutionally protected.

JanSan | 9:46 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009

I also am pleased at the turn out of this.

I also am impressed with the one passed in Washington state - that allowed all the legal rights but DID NOT change the wording of marraige.

If INDEED this is all about getting your legal rights then why not follow this example because it has proven to work.... IF it is NOT all about legal rights then continue.. and hopefully continue to be shot down!

I totally agree with "The Deuce" and "Compromise Proposed"..... if this is REALLY about getting legal rights.. them lets all compromise and leave the word and definition of marraige out of it and we will ALL be much happier.

Rusby | 9:57 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009

We all need to stop claiming rights. When we claim a right we are inherently limiting someone else's actions.
It all comes down to helping our neighbors be free. However, freedom is uncomfortable. A person needs to be able to liberate others according to their conscience.
When it comes to same-sex marriage a person can have two of a myriad of possible responses. A person may feel that they should grant you the right to marry. Also, and equally valid, is trying to liberate by encouraging to overcome sin. Both responses cause discomfort for some, but both are focused on liberation and not the claiming of rights.
This claiming of rights is destroying our world.

NO BLAME TO MORMONS IN MAINE | 10:02 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009

HEY WAIT! I LIVE IN MAINE! I VOTED YES TO REPEAL SAME SEX MARRIAGE HERE! WE ARE THRILLED IT PASSED!

THE PEOPLE HERE HAVE SPOKEN AND IT WAS THE GOVERNOR WHO FIRST STARTED THIS MESS. I AM TOLD HE HAS A SISTER WHO IS GAY THEREFORE HE HAS A PERSONAL AGENDA ON THE ISSUE

WHETHER YOU ARE IN UTAH, CALIFORNIA, MAINE OR ANYOTHER STATE IN THIS COUNTRY/WORLD.... MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN A MAN AND WOMAN...

NOPE NO ONE HERE IS BLAMING THE MORMONS... (MANY MAINERS, THINK MORMONS HAVE HORNS!!)BUT I CAN TELL YOU THIS WE "MORMONS" WERE OUT VOTING ON THIS ISSUE.

MAINE IS A VERY VERY LIBERAL STATE.... THIS ELECTION ACTUALLY PUT INTO ACTION THE DESPENSING OF MARIJUANA FOR MEDICAL PURPOSES....

THIS IS A VICTORY FOR MAINE AND MARRIAGE!

Californian #1@94131 | 10:23 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009

** "Once again, there are americans who cannot marry the one they love. " **

And this will always be true. If the one I love is my brother or sister, father or mother, a combination of two or more people, someone already married to someone else, an infant or anyone below the legal age of consent to marry, mentally incompetent to consent to marry, an animal, bird, plant, or inanimate object, I cannot marry him/her/them/it.

This is certainly a wide-ranging form of discrimination, isn't it?

@NO BLAMETOMORMONSINMAINE | 12:13 p.m. Nov. 4, 2009

you know you maybe a lot more convincing if you did not type in all capital letters, it kind of gives you away as the fraud that you are. and peole wonder why mormons have such a poor rep outside Utah.

Paraphrase a Republican | 1:14 p.m. Nov. 4, 2009

To paraphrase a Utah Republican (of the LDS Faith). We can not claim to support equal rights if we deny them to some poeple because we are not comfortable with thier life style.... I paraphrase because I don't know the exact quote, but I would Like to thank form. Gov. Huntsman for a voice of rationality in an overly emotional issue.

PS. I (as a happily married, hetero, registered republican) have said before. In fifty years when these votes are discussed in history classes in high school the students are going to look back at these descisions with the same questions as to the reasons for the irrational hatred as kids in our generation look back at the civil rights movement.

What the... | 1:16 p.m. Nov. 4, 2009

What the heck does this have to do with Mormons?

It doesn't pass AGAIN, in another State, and instantly people are attaking Mormons again for it?

I seriously don't think Mormons control enough votes in Main to influence this election.

Mormons are just a convenient scapegoat for these people when they lose.

Admit it! It's NOT JUST MORMONS!

Anonymous | 2:11 p.m. Nov. 4, 2009

." In order for the right of gay marriage to have been retained by the people it had to be a right at the time the constitution was adopted, right? Was it a right when the constitution was adopted? My guess is no.
________

When the constitution was adopted, women did not have the right to vote. Blacks were 3/5 of a person. Only white property holders were allowed to vote.

Thank goodness the founders allowed us to grow and realize that others have rights not innumerated in the constitution (amendment #9).

Sorry. You are wrong.

$$$$$$ | 2:15 p.m. Nov. 4, 2009

The reason the Mormons are getting blamed is there is alredy an investigation going on in Maine, and the opposition (anti-equal rights) is being less than forthcoming about where the huge amounts of "Out of state financing" has come from!!! The problem with the so called "democracy" of all of these votes is the fact that the cash flow to supporrt the hate is primarily coming from states that have no say in the matter!!! California.. estimates as high as half the funding came from out of state!!! Thats not a fair fight when absurd amounts of money come from people who shouldn't have a say, polute the airwaves with what should be described as lies, but for PC-ness will be called "Propaganda"!!

Did you all fail civics? | 2:17 p.m. Nov. 4, 2009

We live in a REPUBLIC, not a democracy. The will of the majority is unconstitutional if it infringes on the rights of a minority. Again, the United States of America is a republic.

@What the... | 2:47 p.m. Nov. 4, 2009

I do not see anyone blaming just Mormons but to pretend that they did not try to influence the outcome beyond the a few votes by the handful of Mormons that live there is pathetic at best. Mormons are becoming irnfamece for using their wealth to try to lush their agendas

Matt J | 2:54 p.m. Nov. 4, 2009

It's one thing to disagree with the idea of "gay marriage".

It's another thing for a grown adult to take on the childish attitude of "Ha ha, we beat you!".

Arrogance is ugly no matter what group, religion, or nationality it's coming from.

Dan | 2:57 p.m. Nov. 4, 2009

This is not about preventing people from loving each other. It is about re-defining the term marriage as being between a man and woman.
People keep saying they need the right to love each other too. They are two seperate issues

The Deuce | 2:58 p.m. Nov. 4, 2009

To: RE: The Deuce | 7:39 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009 - I am not sure you understood the meaning of my original post. I defended the legal and civil rights of gays/lesbians. I am simply trying to resolve an issue that addresses these problems. The problem is that we are trying to define a camel as a horse and a horse as a camel. Both are distinct and equal in nature. No one is superior to the other. The same is true for marriage or for civil union/domestic partnership. These terms simply define the parties that enter into the relationship. All civil and legal rights are enjoyed by all. This is equal rights unless you have another agenda. I support equality for all Americans. You can enjoy your relationship with whom ever you want. My proposal covers everyone with the same rights. Therefore, what are the issues?

Happy here.... | 3:44 p.m. Nov. 4, 2009

*Children raised by persons living in homosexual relationships are more likely to have problems, 94 percent of which are attributed to the homosexual "parents". (Cameron & Cameron)

*Children from nontraditional families are more likely to have psychological problems. Boys from nontraditional families are especially at a disadvantage, showing lower self-concept, poorer classroom behavior, and lower grades. (Bronstein et al.)

*Children raised by persons living in homosexual relationships are much more likely to have had same-sex relationships themselves. (Tasker & Golombok)

*Girls raised by lesbians are four times more likely than the base rate of lesbianism in the adult population to become active lesbians themselves. (Tasker & Golombok)

*Homosexual relationships are characteristically unstable and incapable of providing children the security they need. (Dailey)

*Children raised by their married mother and father do far better in every measure of well-being than children raised in other "family" relationships. (Stanton, Popenoe, McLanahan and Sandefur)

*Studies touting the purported benefits of homosexual parenting are based on small, biased, non-representative samples. (Demo and Cox).

*Children raised by homosexuals are more likely to view marriage as transitory and mostly sexual in nature.

Please leave the children out of these relationships. They are the ones who suffer.

Follow the $$$$$ | 3:50 p.m. Nov. 4, 2009

Out of state money is right. According to one news report, over $4 million was spent by pro-gay marriage groups on this fight, while only $2.5 million was spent by the side that won.

We can now expect the fight to be taken directly to the federal level, since the people of most states have demonstrated a lack of tolerance for this lifestyle choice.

This lifestyle places more emphasis on self-gratification than on investing the majority of one's resources on raising and educating the next generation.

Social Security taxes are paid by the working generation to provide for the needs of their aging parents and grandparents. Gays pay them as well as anyone else. But the real problem is the burden gays will place on my children and grandchildren. I have spent roughly $1 million to raise my 4 kids to be responsible citizens and taxpayers. Where is the similar investment from those who choose a lifestyle that produces no offspring and no similar intergenerational responsibility?

re: anonymous @ 2:11 | 3:59 p.m. Nov. 4, 2009

You are right that is how the constitution was in the beginning. Women were not allowed to vote, and African Americans were considered 3/5 of a person.

However, you are incorrect to state that those provisions in the Constitution were changed because they were ruled unconstitutional under the 9th amendment. Women were not granted the right to vote because the Supreme Court granted them that right under the ninth amendment. They were given the right to vote when the 19th amendment was passed. Likewise, African Americans were given constitutional protections, at least in form, by the civil war amendments (13-15). Neither women nor African Americans were given these rights because of the ninth amendment as interpreted by a judge or voted by a legislature. It took constitutional amendments to change things on a large scale. Constitutional Amendments are not easily passed.
The fact that the supreme court did not say "women have the right to vote and African Americans count as citizens b/c the ninth amendment demands it" is further evidence that in order for rights to exist via the ninth amendment they must have been rights at the time the constitution was adopted.

@$$$$$$ | 4:03 p.m. Nov. 4, 2009

So if the Gay/lesbian regime accepts millions from their out of state supportors then it's ok?
You guys are just sour losers, and today you can't quite find who to hate, harrass,intimidate, vandalize.
You'll never give up because you'll never learn.
And stop comparing you lifestyle to the civil rights movement.
Perverts everywhere are gonna get the same idea.

Kudos to "Happy here" | 4:09 p.m. Nov. 4, 2009

True objectivity for a change! Published results of scientific research rather than snivelling whining, and complaining!

RE: Deuce Proposal | 4:18 p.m. Nov. 4, 2009

Answer to your question - From my perspective, "Seperate Is Never Equal", we learned that from the 50's-60's.

So 51% of Americans think "Marriage" means 1 Man + 1 Woman. For 49% of Americans it is two loving individuals who want to make a committment to each other. Why not let both live their lives freely. That way all groups can practice what they want.

Or remove "Marriage" from government forms and let everyone get a "civil union certificate". You can then go to the church/synagogue/temple of your choice to have your own wedding/sealing/etc...

Why not seperate? Because seperate is never equal and this will continue to seperate people into 1st class and 2nd class citizens, and that will never be acceptable for much of society.

Your proposal sounds nice, but the reality is it would be used to remind some that they are not equal.

What parent would say to one child, you are a 1st class child and you are a 2nd class child. For many of us, nothing could be more dispicable.

PS - No one has every explained how allowing the neighbor to get a marriage lisense invalidates their marriage.

Re: comment @ 4:18 | 4:39 p.m. Nov. 4, 2009

For the hetero couple, this isn't about the gays getting together. It's about their bringing children into their perverse lifestyles and then ruining THEIR lives. If two first cousins decide they "love" each other as adults, they still should't be allowed to marry even though they're both consenting adults because of the risk to their children. The gay community needs to accept this. I don't care about gays getting together and wanting to live together. I care about them trying to make a "family" through alternative ways. It is the children who suffer in these relationships but the gays are so selfish they don't care about this. They also seem hell-bent on desecrating the term "marriage" by applying it to their unions. They have civil unions afforded them, yet they will cry and moan until the sun sets that they don't have marriages. Selfish and self-centered.

Happy here

RE: re: anonymous @ 2:11 | 3:59 | 4:41 p.m. Nov. 4, 2009

Perhaps YOU need to read the constitution,

there is NOTHING in the constitution that prohibited women from voting.

IT was NOT a constitutional issue but cultural one,

also Blacks were NOT considered 3/5 of a person.

the ratio was used for House of representatives apportionment, they were concerned the number of blacks in the south would give those states a disproportionate amount of representation.

The botton line is were ever it has been put up to vote BY THE PEOPLE, gay marriage has always been voted down.

maybe it is time the gays stop trying to play house.

While not being attacted to the opposite sex may be a very real condition,

behaving gay is a choice.

and demanding special rights for enablement of that behavior is wrong and NOT a civil issue.

Page:
1
2
Next >

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.