Jump to content

Maine becomes 5th state to allow same-sex marriage


HtownWxBoy

Recommended Posts

  • 4 months later...
  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

In about six weeks, gay marriage will go to a vote in Maine.

...and like in CA... it appears that gay marriage will be voted down - by the narrowest of margins...

http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20090919-NEWS-909190323

According to a poll released Friday by the polling organization Research 2000 and the political Web site dailykoz.com, 48 percent of those surveyed said they'd vote to repeal the law and 46 percent said they would vote to keep it on the books.

So 48 to 46, to repeal. 6% "undecided" (or too cowardly to admit in a survey that they do not agree with the concept of equal protections of the law). And those votes usually always go to the anti-equality side... that would mean the final vote could be along the lines of... 54-46, 52-48....

I guess that should not really surprise me. This state has two Republican senators.

...and if gay and lesbian people are once again raped of their rights at the ballot box, "genius" Nate Silver's estimates would be proven wrong. He predicts that Maine, in 2009, would not enact a gay marriage ban. We'll have to see...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Tomorrow is the day. Will voters affirm or reject marriage equality in Maine? I will have commentary... regardless of the outcome.

Nate Silver seems to think the odds are ~5-2 in favor of affirming equal marriage rights in Maine.

I predict razor thin margins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somewhat off-topic, but Silver totally sets off my gaydar.

Me too. I'd say he's gay or a nerd. More likely, a gay nerd. I think that this has clouded his thinking/projections/modeling on this issue. He's off by about 5 years, IMO.

Well, Maine voters tonight elected to deny the equal protection of its marriage laws to same-gender couples.

~52% in favor of continuing to oppress gay and lesbian couples

~48% in favor of freedom

4 or 5% margin of so-called "victory."

That's just not enough to deny people such important protections. Where one side loses nothing, if the other gains freedom. There needs to be a higher standard than a simple majority for one group to vote on another group's rights. The ultimate being - no voting.

We hear... and we see... that the trend is in favor of marriage equality. And, that perhaps, in 5, 10, 15 years... marriage equality will be the norm. Even some conservatives will concede this.

And we have to ask: If gay marriage... will be "OK" in 5, 10 years... then why not now?

Why is it so urgent, today, that this progress toward freedom... be stopped by a bare majority? For just a few more years? Indefensible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, the big question is indeed "why not now?" Why continue treat others as second class citizens? Same cycles of civil rights struggles - suffrage, racial integration, and so on. I don't understand how so many people can be so bigoted...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Civil Union sounds like something a straight couple or siblings might use if they wanted to. Marriage sounds better because it's not just for the tax/medical/whatever reasons but because it's a promise, a "holy" swear that you want to be with this one person for the rest of your life. Maybe I'm alone on this thought, but what else do you call a bond that strong?

"How was your Civil Union reception?" :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't we just get the government completely out of the marriage business? What business is it of theirs anyway? Oh wait, I forgot we live in a society where people want the government taxing us to control what kind of beverages we drink. I think we should have equal beverage rights, as long as no one taxes my Dr. Pepper then gay people can have the tax benefits of marriage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't we just get the government completely out of the marriage business? What business is it of theirs anyway? Oh wait, I forgot we live in a society where people want the government taxing us to control what kind of beverages we drink. I think we should have equal beverage rights, as long as no one taxes my Dr. Pepper then gay people can have the tax benefits of marriage.

Off-topic again, but those sodas are only cheap because they're chock full of high-fructose corn syrup made from corn subsidized by... wait for it... the government!

No handouts for cornographers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Off-topic again, but those sodas are only cheap because they're chock full of high-fructose corn syrup made from corn subsidized by... wait for it... the government!

No handouts for cornographers!

Government is only in the marriage business because it wanted to stop miscegenation. It has no business approving or denying marriage licenses, because people should not need a license to get married.

I agree. I know the topic here is gay marriage not cola taxes but they are the same issue to me. The government should not be interfering in our lives so much. They shouldn't subsidize corn farmers and they shouldn't tax colas and they shouldn't tell us who can be married.

This should be something liberals and conservatives should be able to agree on. The powerful federal government is our enemy. Lets get them completely out of our running our lives. We shouldn't allow them to practice social engineering through tax policy and we shouldn't allow them to tell us what the definition of marriage is. That's why we came here and founded this country, to get away from Kings telling us how to live our lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mind the government taxing me as long as they provide useful services that I can use (like roads, highways, defense, police, a legal system, education, public transportation, maybe healthcare some day).

But having the government tell us who can marry doesn't benefit me in any way and hurts others, so I think the government should definitely stay out of deciding who is allowed to marry and who is not. Let the churches decide who can have a religious wedding and let everybody else have a civil wedding. But I disagree that a strong government is our enemy. A strong government has a lot of potential to improve every aspect of life in this country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mind the government taxing me as long as they provide useful services that I can use (like roads, highways, defense, police, a legal system, education, public transportation, maybe healthcare some day).

But having the government tell us who can marry doesn't benefit me in any way and hurts others, so I think the government should definitely stay out of deciding who is allowed to marry and who is not. Let the churches decide who can have a religious wedding and let everybody else have a civil wedding. But I disagree that a strong government is our enemy. A strong government has a lot of potential to improve every aspect of life in this country.

Nah, it will just continue to funnel all our money into needless wars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mind the government taxing me as long as they provide useful services that I can use (like roads, highways, defense, police, a legal system, education, public transportation, maybe healthcare some day).

But having the government tell us who can marry doesn't benefit me in any way and hurts others, so I think the government should definitely stay out of deciding who is allowed to marry and who is not. Let the churches decide who can have a religious wedding and let everybody else have a civil wedding. But I disagree that a strong government is our enemy. A strong government has a lot of potential to improve every aspect of life in this country.

I don't think we should have no taxes. I just don't think tax policy should be used to influence our behavior. Letting the government get that involved in our lives leads to situations where gay people can't get the same benefits as straight people. We should all be treated the same as long as we're not breaking any laws. We shouldn't need to have a political discussion about marriage. It's not something the government should be involved in.

I do not believe that a strong federal government can improve every aspect of life. Why should the government even be involved in every aspect of life? I want freedom not improvement, I can take care of the improvement myself. Getting the government involved in our lives is what is keeping gay people from being married. The problem with having the government involved is that they can just as easily ruin aspects of your life. You're not always going to have someone in government who agrees with the way you want to live, it's better the have the freedom to live the way you want to than to give the government power over you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. I know the topic here is gay marriage not cola taxes but they are the same issue to me. The government should not be interfering in our lives so much. They shouldn't subsidize corn farmers and they shouldn't tax colas and they shouldn't tell us who can be married.

That's all well and good to think the government has no purpose, but unless government existed, this world would be in utter chaos. The human population of this planet is too big for everyone to be expected to play nice without adult supervision. I will agree that government should stay out of our affairs if what we do affects no one but ourselves. Gay marriage is one such issue. If two gay men or two lesbians marry, then it means absolutely nothing to me. So what? No one and no thing is hurt in the process. I'll agree that imposing additional taxes on sodas is overreaching, but suggesting the government should stop subsidizing farming is begging for disaster. Of all industries, farming is probably the most volatile and least profitable. If there was no protection (government crop subsidies are essentially a government insurance program - since no insurer in his right mind would actually insure agricultural output) no one would farm. Or, the price of crops in bad years would be more expensive than average people could afford. Either way, one bad decade of drought would cause major problems and cause the economy to domino into mass inflation and economic depression.

This should be something liberals and conservatives should be able to agree on. The powerful federal government is our enemy. Lets get them completely out of our running our lives. We shouldn't allow them to practice social engineering through tax policy and we shouldn't allow them to tell us what the definition of marriage is. That's why we came here and founded this country, to get away from Kings telling us how to live our lives.

I contend a weak federal government is also our enemy. A weak government is an ineffective government. There's a balance between too much power and not enough, but I doubt we'll ever witness any government get it right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The more laws that pass via the legislature (the "voice of the people") and not the courts, and the more marriages opponents and the apathetic see that the sky doesn't fall, the easier it will be on the rest of the states to pass.

If someone is apathetic, then why would they think the sky is gonna fall in if gay marriage is allowed? I'm apathetic towards the issue because it doesn't affect me. With that being said, I do agree with the following:

All so-called marriage rights should be allowed to be conferred contractually between any 2 partners, gay, straight or otherwise, without state-sanctioned 'marriage' entering into it.

I'm for government sanctioned Civil Unions for any two consenting adults. Let the churches worry about who gets marriage certificates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm for government sanctioned Civil Unions for any two consenting adults. Let the churches worry about who gets marriage certificates.

Except for the fact that "Civil Unions," in states that had them, were proven failures.

There is already a secular contractual vehicle, known as civil marriage, that serves couples extremely well - for those who wish to enter into it.

Churchs already marry same-sex couples. But those marriages, like opposite-sex marriages blessed in churchs, are worthless under the law.

It is the secular rights and responsibilities of civil marriage that matter.

There is no religious component to civil marriage. As such, there is no need to call civil marriage by any other name or create some bizarre (and failed) parallel legal structure to approximate it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except for the fact that "Civil Unions," in states that had them, were proven failures.

There is already a secular contractual vehicle, known as civil marriage, that serves couples extremely well - for those who wish to enter into it.

Churchs already marry same-sex couples. But those marriages, like opposite-sex marriages blessed in churchs, are worthless under the law.

It is the secular rights and responsibilities of civil marriage that matter.

There is no religious component to civil marriage. As such, there is no need to call civil marriage by any other name or create some bizarre (and failed) parallel legal structure to approximate it.

Sorry... straight guy tryin' to clarify so please don't take offense...

What if the government disavowed marriage altogether, and recognized permanent couples as being beneficiaries of tax rebates, without a name, straight or gay, would that be sufficient?

I only ask because I think the whole concept of marriage (of which I is so be one) is fairly archaic, though esteemable for those who pull it off (of which I consider myself esteemable in this situation). Outside of the tax benefits, and totally as a devil's advocate on this, why would gay people want to get married? As a former Lothario, I think any possible out to long-term commitment might actually be welcome.

Again, I'm happily married to the most awesome babe. I just ask for sake of argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry... straight guy tryin' to clarify so please don't take offense...

What if the government disavowed marriage altogether, and recognized permanent couples as being beneficiaries of tax rebates, without a name, straight or gay, would that be sufficient?

I only ask because I think the whole concept of marriage (of which I is so be one) is fairly archaic, though esteemable for those who pull it off (of which I consider myself esteemable in this situation). Outside of the tax benefits, and totally as a devil's advocate on this, why would gay people want to get married? As a former Lothario, I think any possible out to long-term commitment might actually be welcome.

Again, I'm happily married to the most awesome babe. I just ask for sake of argument.

No.

Too many people think, wrongly, that this is all about taxes, finances, and money.

People don't get married for the tax reason. They get married for all the other reasons.

People have children (from prior marriages). People adopt. People own property. People have insurance policies. People retire. End of life care. End of life decisions. Sudden death. Sudden illness. Next of kin. Funeral arrangements. Disposal of loved one's ashes/bodies (see my previous post on that one). ... and the right to end it all: divorce (which gay people are prohibited from obtaining - in this state). Plus about 1,000 federal benefits/reasons. There is nothing archaic about any of these benefits/rights/responsibilities in the sense of having equal protections under secular law.

All of that is stitched and packaged neatly together under a legal framework called: civil marriage.

People fall in love with each other. Form pair bonds. And nest build. Civil marriage protects the bonds and the nest.

States in the northeast have experimented with disavowing civil marriage in favor of civil unions, for only gay and lesbian people.

That experiment failed.

There is no practical alternative to civil marriage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No.

Too many people think, wrongly, that this is all about taxes, finances, and money.

People don't get married for the tax reason. They get married for all the other reasons.

People have children (from prior marriages). People adopt. People own property. People have insurance policies. People retire. End of life care. End of life decisions. Sudden death. Sudden illness. Next of kin. Funeral arrangements. Disposal of loved one's ashes/bodies (see my previous post on that one). ... and the right to end it all: divorce (which gay people are prohibited from obtaining - in this state). Plus about 1,000 federal benefits/reasons. There is nothing archaic about any of these benefits/rights/responsibilities in the sense of having equal protections under secular law.

All of that is stitched and packaged neatly together under a legal framework called: civil marriage.

People fall in love with each other. Form pair bonds. And nest build. Civil marriage protects the bonds and the nest.

States in the northeast have experimented with disavowing civil marriage in favor of civil unions, for only gay and lesbian people.

That experiment failed.

There is no practical alternative to civil marriage.

Can you explain the difference between a civil marriage and a civil union? I had assumed it was pretty much the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

States in the northeast have experimented with disavowing civil marriage in favor of civil unions, for only gay and lesbian people. That experiment failed.

There is no practical alternative to civil marriage.

Call it what you want, but I'm for it. However, most people I know who are apathetic to the issue consider the solution to be called "civil union" versus the more traditional word "marriage" - no matter what the meaning may actually be for the former. The word marriage evokes religion, and anything concerning religion and government turns my stomach.

Get rid of the word "marriage" in all forms of government and go to "civil union". That way all religious aspects are removed. Then if someone wants to get "married" they can go to their church (whatever religion that might be) and get "married".

Sorry for all the quotations, but they seemed needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Call it what you want, but I'm for it. However, most people I know who are apathetic to the issue consider the solution to be called "civil union" versus the more traditional word "marriage" - no matter what the meaning may actually be for the former. The word marriage evokes religion, and anything concerning religion and government turns my stomach.

Get rid of the word "marriage" in all forms of government and go to "civil union". That way all religious aspects are removed. Then if someone wants to get "married" they can go to their church (whatever religion that might be) and get "married".

Sorry for all the quotations, but they seemed needed.

Your thinking on this issue is 10 years old. Vermont tried this. It failed. Vermont now has granted access to the civil marriage system up there. They've "upgraded." New Jersey still has civil unions. They are among the worst failures (because a lot of people who live in NJ, work in NY... their unions evaporate every time they cross state lines into NY - and there's a lot complications beyond just this).

The closest I can get... for people who think like you is the following scenario:

Gay and lesbian couples could first be granted access to civil marriage... like everybody else... and then change the entire system to civil unions, for everybody.

And then everybody, not just one group of people... would see just how bad civil unions suck. How do you think voters would vote on something like that?

That seems like a lot of unnecessary work to please a bunch of apathetic people when there never was, or is, any religious component whatsoever to state-sanctioned "marriage." It is horrible that people are barred from the contractual arrangement of civil marriage because people think it "sounds religious" - when, after examining the issue just a little deeper - it isn't.

All that is needed is a simple update to a marriage certificate. Line 1: husband/wife/spouse. Line 2: husband/wife/spouse. That's it. Those who want "tradition" circle husband and wife. Those who don't circle spouse. Now hard is that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your thinking on this issue is 10 years old. Vermont tried this. It failed. Vermont now has granted access to the civil marriage system up there. They've "upgraded." New Jersey still has civil unions. They are among the worst failures (because a lot of people who live in NJ, work in NY... their unions evaporate every time they cross state lines into NY - and there's a lot complications beyond just this).

The closest I can get... for people who think like you is the following scenario:

Gay and lesbian couples could first be granted access to civil marriage... like everybody else... and then change the entire system to civil unions, for everybody.

And then everybody, not just one group of people... would see just how bad civil unions suck. How do you think voters would vote on something like that?

That seems like a lot of unnecessary work to please a bunch of apathetic people when there never was, or is, any religious component whatsoever to state-sanctioned "marriage." It is horrible that people are barred from the contractual arrangement of civil marriage because people think it "sounds religious" - when, after examining the issue just a little deeper - it isn't.

All that is needed is a simple update to a marriage certificate. Line 1: husband/wife/spouse. Line 2: husband/wife/spouse. That's it. Those who want "tradition" circle husband and wife. Those who don't circle spouse. Now hard is that?

Ok, but I still don't get the difference between a civil union and a civil marriage. Are the other states forced to recognize it if it's called marriage? Does this whole thing really just boil down to semantic differences?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, but I still don't get the difference between a civil union and a civil marriage. Are the other states forced to recognize it if it's called marriage? Does this whole thing really just boil down to semantic differences?

Civil Unions are theoretically all the rights and benefits of civil marriage, at a state level only. They are non-transferable to other states that do not also have civil unions. The states must give full faith and credit to the records and judicial proceedings of other states. If a state does not have a similar civil union set up, the union/contract, cannot be transferred. It evaporates as soon as you cross state lines. The same is also true of same-sex civil marriages (that are banned in states that do not have them). All this is tied up in courts due to real Constitutional problems with denying marriage rights, denying the transfer of those rights, etc, etc.

Civil unions are supposed to have all the benefits of civil marriage - but they don't. Because even if you live in a state that has them... insurance companies, and other entities can be multi-state enterprises. They are accustomed to doing business a certain way. For example, if you're filling out an insurance policy, you may find only these choices: Single or Married. There is no "civil unioned" box. People who are "civil unioned" cannot check the married box - even though they are supposed to have all the benefits of married people. That is what many people have found in states that have unions vs. marriage. And that is just one reason, among several others, why they are failures.

New York state will honor, and give full faith and credit, to same-sex marriages performed outside of its borders, but it will not grant same-sex marriage certificates within the state. NY also has no civil union set ups. NJ has civil unions, but not same-sex marriage. So people "married" under a different name/system in NJ, have nothing when they go to work in NY. That problem can be solved by NJ "upgrading" to marriage. Just one very small example in the country.

This is not a superficial semantics problem. It is a problem of irrationally excluding one group of people from a legal framework of rights and responsibilities that all others are entitled to. It is also not a "states rights" issue either (the mantra of "letting states decide" is garbage). It is a human rights issue. No person, in any county, in any state in the entire United States of America should be denied the fundamental right to marry. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will find this true of same-sex couples and will swiftly and permanently bring to an end this insanely cruel practice of voting away people's rights at the ballot box or requiring people to move from their homes to other parts of the country to secure their freedoms. That is un-American to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All that is needed is a simple update to a marriage certificate. Line 1: husband/wife/spouse. Line 2: husband/wife/spouse. That's it. Those who want "tradition" circle husband and wife. Those who don't circle spouse. Now hard is that?

Agree, but..

I'm only advising to drop the word marriage from any government sanctioned form of union because there are those who are religious that first associate marriage with the church, and not state. Those are the ones protesting all the time. But if gays want to call it civil marriage and continue to climb the mountain, be my guest. Like I said, I don't really care either way - it doesn't affect me. I just know that term Civil Union is far more disarming and in a perfect secular world, my government would only issue those to any two consenting adults.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree, but..

I'm only advising to drop the word marriage from any government sanctioned form of union because there are those who are religious that first associate marriage with the church, and not state. Those are the ones protesting all the time. But if gays want to call it civil marriage and continue to climb the mountain, be my guest. Like I said, I don't really care either way - it doesn't affect me. I just know that term Civil Union is far more disarming and in a perfect secular world, my government would only issue those to any two consenting adults.

We should not have to change the name of anything to please people who are protesting. They aren't the ones being harmed.

Gays aren't calling it civil marriage. It is civil marriage.

And we don't live in a perfect world. As such the "civil union" approach to this whole problem won't and doesn't work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree, but..

I'm only advising to drop the word marriage from any government sanctioned form of union because there are those who are religious that first associate marriage with the church, and not state. Those are the ones protesting all the time. But if gays want to call it civil marriage and continue to climb the mountain, be my guest. Like I said, I don't really care either way - it doesn't affect me. I just know that term Civil Union is far more disarming and in a perfect secular world, my government would only issue those to any two consenting adults.

We should not have to change the name of anything to please people who are protesting. They aren't the ones being harmed.

But they're the ones getting it voted down again and again. Gays are going to have to find a compromise before the Christians will. Its the nature of the beast. You'd think it would be 50/50 seeing as Christianity is supposedly based on living a life of tolerance and acceptance of all - but human will always seems to counter that.

Honestly, I hope all this gay marriage stuff happens just so we can finally move on. Gays deserve it, it won't hurt anyone, lets just pass it and move forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But they're the ones getting it voted down again and again. Gays are going to have to find a compromise before the Christians will. Its the nature of the beast. You'd think it would be 50/50 seeing as Christianity is supposedly based on living a life of tolerance and acceptance of all - but human will always seems to counter that.

Honestly, I hope all this gay marriage stuff happens just so we can finally move on. Gays deserve it, it won't hurt anyone, lets just pass it and move forward.

You don't compromise anything on civil rights.

You bring up a good point about being voted down again and again...

Regarding all that voting... In reading other blogs and news sources... In Maine, ~50% of registered voters showed up. Roughly half of that number voted on a measure that affected 100% of all the population of that state.

So you have ~25% of a voting population, affecting what everbody else does. Same story pretty much everywhere on this issue. And while having that minority voting group accept or reject standards for livestock may be appropriate (as was the case in CA - chickens got more space in their pens), it is never appropriate to accept/reject/alter fundamental human rights in this matter (as was done in CA; humans lost rights, animals gained them). Because in effect, what you really have is the tyranny of a minority group raping another minority group of its rights. And that's just not right.

That is why these matters are much more appropriately addressed by legislatures and the court system. Those two branches of government deal with the whole (you have a 100% representation of a population in a legislature; courts look for equal protections for all people) vs. parts of a whole (i.e. popular voting whereby a minority governs the whole).

Also... I am less inclined to think this is all about religion as it is more about urban v. rural - more than anything. Religion is proving to be more of a red herring/diversion on this topic... And that's why Nate Silver is wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't compromise anything on civil rights.

You bring up a good point about being voted down again and again...

Regarding all that voting... In reading other blogs and news sources... In Maine, ~50% of registered voters showed up. Roughly half of that number voted on a measure that affected 100% of all the population of that state.

So you have ~25% of a voting population, affecting what everbody else does. Same story pretty much everywhere on this issue. And while having that minority voting group accept or reject standards for livestock may be appropriate (as was the case in CA - chickens got more space in their pens), it is never appropriate to accept/reject/alter fundamental human rights in this matter (as was done in CA; humans lost rights, animals gained them). Because in effect, what you really have is the tyranny of a minority group raping another minority group of its rights. And that's just not right.

That is why these matters are much more appropriately addressed by legislatures and the court system. Those two branches of government deal with the whole (you have a 100% representation of a population in a legislature; courts look for equal protections for all people) vs. parts of a whole (i.e. popular voting whereby a minority governs the whole).

Also... I am less inclined to think this is all about religion as it is more about urban v. rural - more than anything. Religion is proving to be more of a red herring/diversion on this topic... And that's why Nate Silver is wrong.

In other words, what you're saying is that if it doesn't hurt anyone, it shouldn't be illegal, right?

I don't disagree with you on that one bit, but the religious right will argue that it does hurt society at large. I don't agree, but that's the platform they attack the concept of gay marriage from. Their logic is circular at best. They argue that legalizing gay marriage will ultimately cause the downfall of society. They say legalizing it is essentially an explicit approval of homosexuality, and that all traditional social mores will tumble like dominoes thereafter. First, like Rick Santorum once so thoughtfully pointed out, the next step is NAMBLA moves into the mainstream, and as well, people will start marrying their pets. Then, the idea of being gay will become so cool to all the young impressionable minds, every kid in the country will become gay. Oh noes, the children!

You and I recognize this as hyperbole and specious logic, but there's a substantial portion of the population that'll believe anything they see on TV. I'm of the opinion that people don't choose to be gay anymore than people choose to be straight. Unfortunately, there is not yet any definitive proof to substantiate my opinion. I think it will be uncovered one day though, and when it does, all the Chicken Little fundies will have run out of arguments. But, even if the case can be proven definitively that no amount of legalization or public acceptance will cause the world to end, I bet they'll still oppose it. Some people are so obsessed with the idea of conformity that they refuse to acknowledge that it's just fine to have other people live their lives in a manner different than their own. It's stupid, but I doubt people are yet ready to get along with each other unequivocally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other words, what you're saying is that if it doesn't hurt anyone, it shouldn't be illegal, right?

I don't disagree with you on that one bit, but the religious right will argue that it does hurt society at large. I don't agree, but that's the platform they attack the concept of gay marriage from. Their logic is circular at best. They argue that legalizing gay marriage will ultimately cause the downfall of society. They say legalizing it is essentially an explicit approval of homosexuality, and that all traditional social mores will tumble like dominoes thereafter. First, like Rick Santorum once so thoughtfully pointed out, the next step is NAMBLA moves into the mainstream, and as well, people will start marrying their pets. Then, the idea of being gay will become so cool to all the young impressionable minds, every kid in the country will become gay. Oh noes, the children!

You and I recognize this as hyperbole and specious logic, but there's a substantial portion of the population that'll believe anything they see on TV. I'm of the opinion that people don't choose to be gay anymore than people choose to be straight. Unfortunately, there is not yet any definitive proof to substantiate my opinion. I think it will be uncovered one day though, and when it does, all the Chicken Little fundies will have run out of arguments. But, even if the case can be proven definitively that no amount of legalization or public acceptance will cause the world to end, I bet they'll still oppose it. Some people are so obsessed with the idea of conformity that they refuse to acknowledge that it's just fine to have other people live their lives in a manner different than their own. It's stupid, but I doubt people are yet ready to get along with each other unequivocally.

Yes. And what happened in Maine? 50% saw no harm in marriage equality. They stayed home and did not vote. Had they felt otherwise, they would have voted to repeal. They didn't. ~25% believe in marriage equality. They voted. So ~75% of the population of Maine saw no harm in equal marriage rights or positively endorsed that "no harm" position on election night by voting... Yet a slim ~25% (plus some change) minority group got their way, and set the law for all others to follow. Such horse crap. Sorry to repeat this point.

People cannot say that gay marriage will lead to the downfall of society... because it is already legal in several states and several nations and the sky didn't fall. There is already a proven track record, to the contrary (in fact Massachusetts now has the lowest divorce rate in the country; gay marriage actually helped, right?). People tend to forget that. And people tend to forget that voting down gay marriage will not make gay couples - and their children - go away. The other side proclaims: we don't want this in our schools or near our children. Guess what? It's already there! Do you honestly think by robbing a child's parents of the right to marry will stop that child from referring to their two moms or two dads questions/taunts/threats by other school children? I don't think so. Same-sex couples already live in martial arrangements, at great risk with no legal protections, and have been for decades, if not centuries.

The "root cause" of homosexual orientation does not matter. No substantive proof is required, nor should ever be required. People stamp their feet like little children claiming: "I was born this way! I was! It's like being black!" Yawn.

Because at the end of the day... the Constitution also protects those who make choices to freely associate with others in groups, as affirmed by Supreme Court rulings in the 1950's (first amendment).

People who are Jewish... chose to remain Jewish. And they can get married. Yet, by population, there are more gays and lesbians in this country than there are Jews. So why can't gay and lesbian people get married - even if homosexuality is a chosen association, like all religions? (the size of a minority group doesn't matter - I just put it there as reference). There is no need to prove homosexuality as an immutable characteristic as a basis to extend marriage equality rights, or the protections of any laws in this country; it is completely irrelevant.

EDIT: Those who oppose marriage equality have already run out of chicken little arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


All of the HAIF
None of the ads!
HAIF+
Just
$5!


×
×
  • Create New...