A September 16 Research 2000 poll reports 48% of Maine voters support taking away marriage rights from same-sex couples, 46% oppose, and 6% remain undecided. This close race merits some media analysis.
One nefarious aspect of the Yes on Proposition 1 effort is its similarity to the Yes on 8 effort in California. Here is a radio ad in support of Proposition 1:
"The chair recognizes the representative from Brunswick."
(Narrator) Special interest groups got the legislature to approve homosexual marriage and tried to prevent Mainers from voting on it.
(Representative Charlie Priest) "We ought not to send it out to referendum."
(Narrator) But Question 1 gives us our vote.
(Scott Fitzgibbon, professor of law from Boston College Law School) "Unless Question 1 passes there will be real consequences for Mainers. It will no longer be live and let live. Homosexual marriage will be the law whether Mainers like it or not."
"Dear Governor Baldacci, we write to provide you with an analysis of the effects..."
(Narrator) Distinguished legal scholars wrote the Governor warning of the flood of lawsuits against individuals, small businesses and religious groups. Church organizations could lose their tax exemption. And in Massachusetts, homosexual marriage is taught in public schools. Federal courts have ruled that parents have no right to notice, or to pull their children out of this instruction. Vote Yes on Question 1 to preserve traditional marriage between one man and one woman.
Compare that to this TV ad in support of Proposition 8:
(Gavin Newsom) "This door's wide open now. It's gonna happen whether you like it or not."
(Narrator) Four judges ignored 4 million voters and imposed same-sex marriage on California. It's no longer about tolerance. Acceptance of gay marriage is mandatory.
(Richard Peterson, professor at Pepperdine School of Law) That changes a lot of things. People sued over personal beliefs, churches can lose their tax-exemption, gay marriage taught in public schools.
(Narrator) We don't have to accept this.
(Gavin Newsom) "Whether you like it or not!"
(Narrator) Yes on 8.
The Yes on 1 campaign, Stand For Marriage Maine, is smart. They are co-opting Mayor Gavin Newsom's unfortunate "whether you like it or not" comment, and insinuating that just as "4 million (CA) voters" were ignored, Maine's state legislature attempted to bypass voters. They reiterate the same false arguments about teaching marriage in schools, tax exemption, and even use a similar unknown white law professor from a private university to legitimize the falsehoods.
In such a close race, with 6% undecided, the anti-gay campaign is smart. Why reinvent the wheel? Frightening voters was extraordinarily effective in California. Despite the dearth of apocalyptic gay uprisings between California's first statewide May 2008 same-sex marriages and the November election, we were told that churches and individuals would surely be sued, and small children would learn about gay sex in school, in the future.
UniteTheFight.org has a good round-up of the television ads for Propositions 8 (CA) and 1 (ME) here.
Related:
Marriage is Gay
Maine Legalizes Same Sex Marriage!
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Maine anti-gay campaign echoes California.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16070
I don't understand the "taught in schools" thing. If gay marriage is the legalized norm (and it should be), are you saying it won't be treated as such in schools?
i know. i wasnt taught anything about marriage in school.
I'm pretty sure it permeates education, the idea of what growing up means, what the families in the books and lessons look like, etc. If gay marriage is legal/normal, then in schools some of the families will be gay. That's WONDERFUL, but if you think gay marriage is wrong and you don't want your kids taught to regard it as normal, of course you'd object to it.
Neither was I. Its so unfair that this should even be given to the public. Its a RIGHT, like voting, ect.
Gay marriage shouldn't be on a ballot. It shouldn't be up to the voters of a state whether or not two people can get married. There's an excellent marriage equality ad from Ireland called "Sinead's Hand" that captures the idea that strangers shouldn't have the right to "give you or deny you permission" to get married.
Democracy is the tyranny of the majority. We don't have to like it, but we have to deal with it.
But this isn't about just any law - about what side of the road we should drive on, or even whether or not taxes should increase to pay for libraries or schools. This is about the right to marry the person you want. Should our rights be up for vote?
"should" doesn't mean a thing unless you can convince the Supreme Court. The fact is that voters do get a say, so we'd better set about convincing them.
That is not at all the case. We have a representative democracy. We also have an equally powerful executive and judicial branch of our government. One of the purposes of that judicial branch is precisely to protect against the tyranny of the majority.
Representative democracy is not mob rule. Ballot initiatives, however, may well be.
I like anyone who names herself after a Bob Dylan reference, but - We aren't a mob ruled Democracy when it comes to minority rights, it only looks like we are because of the ballot initiatives we're discussing here at this very moment?
The anti-homosexual and defenders of marriage might be better believed if they didn't carry signs that say things like "Homosexuals Are Possessed By Demons."
I am all for having a dialogue and people discussing their opinions and having their voices heard, but when they carry signs like that, it just takes away all their credibility.
Being from Maine and having worked on this campaign I guess Its pretty awful that Maine is one of the few states with a peoples Veto, it was the first state ever that both the house, senate and governor all signed it into law.
And the only thing the Yes on 1 people have to stand on is God and the bible.
And Maine is one of those states that really could go either way.
And the opposition has repeatedly lied and said that Churches would be affected, however this law clearly states that Churches can choose not to perform Same Gender Marraiges.
http://www.freedomtomarry.org/states/maine.php
However I think the Maine Freedom to Marry Coalition has done a phenominal job at organizing in this campaign. In the initial preliminary hearings to put this to law, the people who were for Marraige Equality outnumbered the opposition 4 to 1. And the commercials are phenominal for a minimal cost organization! Even people from the opposition have commented on how organized "the gays" are.
Not to mention, theres a huge effort to get early voters out there and really make sure this bill doesn't pass.
"And the opposition has repeatedly lied and said that Churches would be affected, however this law clearly states that Churches can choose not to perform Same Gender Marraiges."
It's about fear. The anti-gay marriage camp believes that society is on a path towards more and more liberal morality, and thus makes a "slippery slope" argument that allowing gay marriage will ultimately result in churches being forced to perform same-sex marriages. This slippery slope argument is invalid, of course, but social conservatism is fond of slippery slope arguments about what it considers to be moral issues.
Gay marriage isn't immediately going to lead to Christian churches losing their tax-exempt status. It will lead to it though. If you think that banning gay marriage is the equivalent of banning interracial marriage, why woudldn't you think that churches who refuse to perform gay marriages should lose their tax exempt status? Churches that refuse to perform interracial marriages do:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20081030/news_1n30exempt.html
Also, it will inevitably lead to public schools teaching children that homosexuality and gay marriage are normal. If you'd oppose public schools making it a point not to teach that interracial marriage is OK, why wouldn't you feel the same way about gay marriage?
Winston Churchill wrote an essay with the thesis that the rights of a minority should never be left up to the deciding power of the majority. Why should a predominately heterosexual population get to decide the rights of a fairly small homosexual population? Ridiculous.
Let me get this straight- these egocentric people who have replaced God with themselves feel that they are justified to suddenly thump bibles and justify their personal bigotry with religion?
I guess their game plan must go a little something like this:
1. DECLARE self a Christian, a follower of an infallible God that created reality.(Notice the concept of the self-made man here?)
2. Reinterpret "God's Words" (The Bible) to suit personal agenda. (Note the egocentricism that led them to this. They suddenly become the authors of their own beings, and god is suddenly a commodity for them to use. No longer do they serve God- God is now there for their personal use.)
3.????
4. Profit.
Logic fail at its finest.
This is discouraging. Why is it that the US seems to be stepping backwards?
It's not. There weren't attempts to overturn gay marriage before because there wasn't gay marriage anywhere in the US.
I'm concerned about Maine, but only in the way that the wingnuts can bring out the wingnuts to vote. New Englanders tend to care about only what effects their own lives -- we're savvy enough to know gay marriage is not one of those issues. Massachusetts isn't that far from where most Mainers live and the world hasn't ended, nor has much changed, there.
As a sidenote, the picture is from Massachusetts' State House from 6 years ago when this whole thing blew through here. ;-)
I guarantee the guy holding the sign beats it to gay porn multiple times a day
Two quick questions for anyone who thinks that banning gay marriage is the equivalent of banning interracial marriage:
If you support taking away tax-exempt status from churches who don't do interracial marriages, why don't you support taking away tax-exempt status from churches who don't do gay marriages?
What difference do you claim to see between school not teaching that interracial marriage is normal, and not teaching that gay marriage is normal?
Good questions. Here's another: Why do people who voted for George W Bush feel entitled to have their opinion taken seriously about anything?
I didn't vote for Bush. I wasn't even old enough to vote at the time!
As you can tell, I'm a conservative. I'm trying to understand the opposition as best I can. One part of understanding the opposition involves asking some fairly common-sense questions, such as:
If you support taking away tax-exempt status from churches who don't do interracial marriages, why don't you support taking away tax-exempt status from churches who don't do gay marriages?
What difference do you claim to see between school not teaching that interracial marriage is normal, and not teaching that gay marriage is normal?
I didn't vote for Bush. I wasn't even old enough to vote at the time.
As you can tell, I'm a conservative. I am not "trolling", or going around smearing or insulting people who do not hold my point of view. I'm trying to understand the opposition, and part of doing that involves asking some common-sense questions, such as:
If you support taking away tax-exempt status from churches who don't do interracial marriages, why don't you support taking away tax-exempt status from churches who don't do gay marriages?
What difference do you claim to see between schools not teaching that interracial marriage is normal, and not teaching that gay marriage is normal?
Well, if you're geniunely seeking information, are church's denied tax-exempt status for not holding interracial marriages?
And where gay marriage is legal there's no reason in the world schools shouldn't teach that it's normal. Do you think schools should teach that interracial marriage is abnormal? Do you think schools should teach that gay marriage is?
" A potentially landmark guide is a case that focused on racial discrimination allegations at Bob Jones University, which had denied admission to interracial couples. In 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court held 8-1 that charities and nonprofits cannot maintain an IRS tax exemption if their practices run contrary to “established public policy.” ":
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20081030/news_1n30exempt.html
But what about teaching that homosexuality is normal in schools? How can you possibly compare banning gay marriage to banning interracial marriage, and at the same time say that you're completely fine with schools not teaching about it?
two things:
first, Bob Jones University appeared to have not been accepting individuals based on their being in an interracial relationship. How did Bob Jones get this information? Why is it relevant to the education? What makes that not discrimination by an educational institution?
Bob Jones was being held to the standards of a non-profit or charitable educational institution, as that is what it is. Whether it is religious or not, it's not a Church and therefor the rules are different. The Supreme Court wouldn't be able to rule on the religious practices of the Church which runs Bob Jones, but certainly can have a say in discriminatory admissions practices.
Second, where in the cirricula of any school system is there discussion of marriage? Massachusetts doesn't even touch that at all. Marriage is actually an understood social structure of two people entering into a legal and into a religious contract (one name, two things). It's no less a marriage if your religious leader marries you and it's not recognized by the state (I'm looking at you polygamous cults), nor if you're married by the state but religion doesn't want to touch it (interracial marriage pre-civil rights era).
Your arguments fall flat because they presuppose an understanding or disposition which isn't there. No one teaches our children about what's normal in a marriage, that's the job of our parents.
I think the bigger problem here is that marriage is only discussed in schools when they're using an abstinence only education policy. You can't tell them "wait until you're indefinitely older and love someone" because that's ludicrous. You have to set a timeline. So, it's "wait until you're married". Then the issue of marriage and what one is, isn't or could be comes up.
Yet another reason abstinence only education creates more problems than it's worth.
Gay marriage is taught in public schools: http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm.pdf
In the link I provided, where does it say that Christian churches are immune from the discrimination laws?
Mass Resistance is on its way to being declared a homophobic hate group, so take what they say with extreme caution. The claims they make are actually pretty unfounded.
I want to point to the NPR one, though, because I think it's important to note that the teacher was talking about if same-sex marriage was brought up by children in the classroom, not that the teacher was the one bringing that into the cirriculum.
Until you show me where in Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Iowa or Maine cirricula there is discussion in any fashion of marriage outside of its literary implications in fiction novels, your point is still hollow.
For the point of full disclosure, I went to a university which is known for its education program and my father is an educator in the state of Massachusetts. As such, if there was anywhere in the cirricula for grades and subjects which dealt specifically with same-sex marriage, there would have been classes and discussions about it. At the very least, I know my friends would have asked me my stance on the subject for it being taught in schools. None of this has happened.
I can't say that everything in a classroom happens strictly from the cirriculum presented, but what I can say is that the cirriculum is the frame work by which ALL educators need to perform their jobs. Same same marriage is not taught in schools, but it's not ignored if brought up.
Topics like incest, rape, developing world exploitation, evolution and creationism are discussed in cirricula -- however something as incidental as a child bringing up same-sex marriage has you up in arms? I fail to see why any of the other topics are less important and less deserving of Conservative ire.
Because the modern conservative movement is defined by the list of what they hate and fear. Gays are on that list. Incest, rape and exploitation are not.
I guess I'd feel sort of the same way about gay relationships as you do about viable, "defective" fetuses. They aren't particularly useful; so because they're defective, the state no longer has any grounds to protect them.
But that's probably a bad example. I would never suggest killing them.
If you're the "future of conservatism," and I'm sure you are, Sarah Palin will be the GOP nominee for the next 20 years.
Thanks for the heads-up.
https://proxify.com/p/001110A1000100/687474703a2f2f7777772e61626f7274696f6e6e6f2e6f72672f5265736f75726365732f41626f7274696f6e50696374757265732f34382e68746d6c
Since you're such a smart kid, would you mind informing me about how I feel about viable, "defective" fetuses? I'd love to know.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/oct/08100812.html
If you're here to gather honest info, the least you could do is read the answers people give you. I've said repeatedly that schools should treat gay marriage as normal.
Now some questions for you:
1. Are you against interracial marriage?
2. If not, please evaluate the moral and intellectual quality of the "conservatives" who opposed it, called it anti-Biblical, and said it would kill civilization.
3. Then tell me why they or their children have any credibility when it comes to gay marriage.
I'm not against interracial marriage. As for the old conservatives who opposed it, they were simply afraid of change (my parents were not among them). And for what it's worth, the Catholic Church completely supported it.
Gay marriage is a bad idea. In addition to the reasons I've listed, treating homosexual and heterosexual relationships the same basically says that childbearing is not really what marriage is about - it's about personal fulfillment, and anything else is secondary to that. Are homosexuals incapable of procreation? Do they use more recreational drugs, and are they much more promiscuous as well? Doesn't matter. Marriage is about personal fulfillment and nothing more.
And before you say "we allow sterile and old couples to marry", that's because they still fall under the general definition of people who can usually procreate, i.e. "heterosexual couples". This is similar to how the drinking age works: we create a general definition to determine who is responsible enough to drink alchohol (21 and older). I'm sure that poor, depressed people are less responsible drinkers than 20 year olds, but we still sell alcohol to them, and not to 20 year olds.
In addition to the reasons I've listed, treating homosexual and heterosexual relationships the same basically says that childbearing is not really what marriage is about - it's about personal fulfillment, and anything else is secondary to that
I'd like you to talk to single mothers and fathers raising children. Really, I would. I think you'd find that what you get out of a marriage is the support you need in helping through life.
There's a reason why marriage vows don't include "and we shall be fruitful and multiply in God's plan for the world", but do include language about fidelity, responsibility and companionship.
And, as for the general definition of people who can procreate, gay people are still biologically capable of having children as individuals. Some even do and have previous to their same-sex relationships. Your argument makes no sense. Sterile people, since you brought it up, are not biologically capable of having children and so, therefor, should have less of a right to marry (under your view of marriage rights) than gay people who could biologically have children through a surrogate and then raise the child together.
OR, have you ignored all the studies which state that it's not a mother and father who matter, but merely the existence of close masculine and feminine influences to the child.
You need to break out of conservative media and read some science without political agenda. You'll find that things are a bit different.
I run pretty middle of the road for this site on most things, and I have no problem with people who're opposed to same-sex marriage -- some of my friends are -- however, the things you're citing are straight out of the conservative propoganda mills.
I'd like you to talk to single mothers and fathers raising children. Really, I would. I think you'd find that what you get out of a marriage is the support you need in helping through life.
I think that if we go the direction that gay marriage is taking us, we'll have a lot more single mothers and fathers than we would otherwise. Liberalism isn't exactly known for its low divorce rates (and neither are lesbian relationships).
There's a reason why marriage vows don't include "and we shall be fruitful and multiply in God's plan for the world", but do include language about fidelity, responsibility and companionship.
I don't think the wording of the marriage vows is particularly important. If there's a reason that "we will be fruitful and multiply" is not in marriage vows, it's because it was traditionally assumed that this is what they would do!
And, as for the general definition of people who can procreate, gay people are still biologically capable of having children as individuals. Some even do and have previous to their same-sex relationships. Your argument makes no sense. Sterile people, since you brought it up, are not biologically capable of having children and so, therefor, should have less of a right to marry (under your view of marriage rights) than gay people who could biologically have children through a surrogate and then raise the child together.
In the case that they do create a motherless or fatherless child, this child would still be someone's stepchild...
http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/buller/cinderella%20effect%20facts.pdf
OR, have you ignored all the studies which state that it's not a mother and father who matter, but merely the existence of close masculine and feminine influences to the child.
No good research on gay parenting has been done yet. However, we do know that male homosexual couples are more likely to use drugs and be promiscuous, and that children whose parents do these things are much more likely to end up doing them themselves.
Liberalism isn't exactly known for its low divorce rates
Explain that claim please. I'm trying really hard to pretend to respect your intelligence and you are not making it easy. Massachussetts is famously the most liberal state in the union. How's the divorce rate? How has it changed since 2004? How does it compare to Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, Alaska and other states spared the liberal/gay plague of infidelity and divorce?
I don't think that liberal states, or even states that have gay marriage, will necessarily have high divorce rates. Liberal countries with liberal divorce laws certainly will. Are you unaware of the spiking divorce rates around the seventies?
So you realize that conservative redneck homophobic states have higher divorce rates than liberal states where gay marriage exists, but you still think it's liberals and gays who cause divorce and you don't see yourself as incredibly dim-witted?
Did you not look at the divorce rates pre-1960s? Are you seriously suggesting that social liberalism, on average, produces lower divorce rates that conservatism/natural law?
Given the low divorce rates among liberals and the high divorce rates and other extreme family/sexual dysfunction commonly exhibited by you self-righteous hypocrites, along with the astonishingly evil sexual ethics demonstrated by say the Catholic Church, it's pretty hard to make a case that "conservationism" leads to anything good at all with regard to relationships. You've said yourself that being heterosexual, rather than any actual behavior, is what counts, and obviously the conservative world agrees. But hey kid, at least you're not gay right?
I think that if we go the direction that gay marriage is taking us, we'll have a lot more single mothers and fathers than we would otherwise. Liberalism isn't exactly known for its low divorce rates (and neither are lesbian relationships).
Since we're picking on Massachusetts, they have the lowest divorce rate in the country. Bar none. The divorce rate in Massachusetts is actually that of roughly the 1950s. So, no. You're just wrong.
I don't think the wording of the marriage vows is particularly important.
Really? Because vows were the first form of legal contract and the wording is everything. The vows you take are EXACTLY what you're being held to. There's a reason why Henry VIII wasn't granted a divorce by the Pope because his wife couldn't bear children. That's because child-bearing wasn't important enough for the Pope to nullify the marriage, among other political reasons at the time. So, again, you're just wrong.
However, we do know that male homosexual couples are more likely to use drugs and be promiscuous
That claim needs a link citation to something proving it -- and not from the Family Research Council.
Besides which, there's drug addict straight parents who have kids and are married. You going to bust up their marriage because they're acting like those crazy homos?
Massachusetts does have low divorce rates. What does that prove? I don't think that gay marriage is going to have any sort of short term immediate effects.
Henry VIII wasn't granted a divorce because divorce + remarriage is contrary to Catholic teachings. There is absolutely no divorce and remarriage within Catholicism - no exceptions. There are annulments, but those can only be obtained if the marriage was not valid to begin with.
About higher rates of drug use among homosexuals:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2589133
And I almost forgot:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18852843?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_PMC&linkpos=2&log$=citedinpmcarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed
thefutureofconservatism.wordpress.com replied to aleks :
I'm not against interracial marriage. As for the old conservatives who opposed it, they were simply afraid of change (my parents were not among them). And for what it's worth, the Catholic Church completely supported it.
So those God-hating, marriage-destroying libruls were sort of kind of right about interracial marriage, or at least those good patriotic Christian conservatives no longer have the courage of that particular conviction, but we should all totally take your word that you're right this time. You're not afraid of change this time, you're defending your freedom not to live in a country with married gay couples.
treating homosexual and heterosexual relationships the same basically says that childbearing is not really what marriage is about
A free society is one where this brilliant thinker gets to decide what marriage is about for everyone.
Do they use more recreational drugs, and are they much more promiscuous as well? Doesn't matter. Marriage is about personal fulfillment and nothing more.
If promiscuity is a criteria, only lesbians should be allowed to marry, not heteros or men of any type. Certainly not Republican elected officials, the biggest sluts in the country.
And before you say "we allow sterile and old couples to marry", that's because they still fall under the general definition of people who can usually procreate, i.e. "heterosexual couples". Gays will destroy marriage by not getting pregnant, whereas straight people preserve marriage by having kids who can grow up to fight the Muslims or commies or whatever, except for those who don't but at least aren't gay. Thanks for clearing that up.
"Liberal" and "conservative" are relative terms. Contemporary conservatism is nothing like the conservatism of the sixties and seventies.
If there are practical reasons for deciding that marriage is more about the children and less about the personal fulfillment of the adults in it, then we can do it.
Promscuity is a criteria. When these children raised by male homosexuals go out into the world and marry someone of the opposite sex, where having several partners "on the side" is not par for the course...
Gay marriage will ingrain the idea that marriage is "all about me".
Do heterosexuals lose their marriage rights when they've proven, individually or collectively, to be promiscuous? White Republican politicians who claim to be heterosexual are among the least faithful people alive. I don't see you calling for Family Values Defenders Mark Sanford or David Vitter's marriage rights to be revoked. Larry Craig?
You keep laying out reasons ("child bearing", "promiscuity") that apply to heteros as well. Ronald Reagan was an absolutely Biblical adulterer, as are Gingrich, McCain and Giuliani. Would you support outlawing any of their second or third marriages? Because, let me guess, you're not a bigot right? And you're not stupid, right?
Honestly, I would have no problem with adulterers (or people who abuse their spouses) from being prohibited from remarrying if it they are convicted of adultery or abuse. This would obviously work better for spousal abuse and domestic violence... I mean, when was the last time we actually bothered to prosecute anyone for adultery? The 1920s?
So you'd like to see Nancy Reagan, John and Cindy McCain, Giuliani and Gingrich and the most recent two wives of each, Vitter, Craig, Sanford, etc. all prosecuted?
What did the women in those situations do?? I think it was the men who were unfaithful. Anyways, the statute of limitations has expired on McCain, but I would love to see a prominent public figure who commits adultery be arrested and prosecuted for it. It would go a long way towards offsetting the declining stigma towards adultery that their behavior produces.
They married men who had previously married women who were still alive. At least pretend you've skimmed the Bible. So you'd love to see Newt Gingrich, Sen Vitter and Gov Sanford prosecuted? I hate to be the one to tell you this, but they're high ranking Republican, conservative, white, heterosexuals and strong defenders of "Traditional Marriage" and "Family Values". They're the ones who write the talking points that are echoing around in your head and squeaking out your mouth.
Hey, as long as we prosecuted Bill Clinton too (and every other adulterous public official, regardless of political affiliation), I don't think I'd have much of a problem with that. It is hypocritical for adulterers to talk about "family values". And it obviously wouldn't be fair to prosecute their wives - their remarriages were completely legal.
Remarrying after a divorce is legal for everyone. Jimmeny.
"Liberal" and "conservative" are relative terms. Contemporary conservatism is nothing like the conservatism of the sixties and seventies.
If there are practical reasons for deciding that marriage is more about the children and less about the personal fulfillment of the adults in it, then we can do it.
Promscuity is a criteria. When these children raised by male homosexuals go out into the world and marry someone of the opposite sex, where having several partners "on the side" is not par for the course...
Gay marriage will ingrain the idea that marriage is "all about me". It will also result in churches losing their tax-exempt status, and schools teaching that homosexuality is normal - and parents will not be able to object.
Wow. Funny that I stumble upon this post. My partner and I have been together for 9 years today. We've seen family and friends get both married and divorced in the time we've been devoted to each other. I was taught that marriage is about love. LOVE. How can anyone define marriage and love for another person? I respect that you believe that marriage is about children, but claiming that LGBT folks are only focused on personal desires is just goofy and ignorant. We are human-beings. Real people. Why do you care so much about what we're up to? How does my getting married to the partner of my choosing for the purpose of demonstrating our amazing and beautiful LOVE for one another effect you in any way??? Who gave you the power to judge everyone else? Have you ever loved someone? Have you ever had someone else tell you that you're an evil demon for loving?
We allow sterile and older people past childbearing age to marry because they already fall in the category of people we allow to marry
Oh the horror of marriage being about personal fulfillment rather than making babies, prospering economically, and pleasing YOUR god. See this is the point where you really need to take your crazy-ass "marriage isn't about love", "women are property of their husbands" back to the 1820's. I wish the conservatives flooded the airwaves with a "marriage isn't about personal fulfillment" message. Isn't that sad that you have to take joy, fulfillment, and love out of the definition of marriage just to exclude same-sex couples?
Will anyone say what the real problems are? 1) The government is treating coupled people differently from single people and 2) The government is recognizing partnerships that were established in a religious context rather than a secular one.
"We allow sterile and older people past childbearing age to marry because they already fall in the category of people we allow to marry"
We're not trying to exclude anyone, it's not gays who can't get married, it's people who don't get pregnant and aren't straight.
I'm really confused about this part: "It will no longer be live and let live."
How was it "live and let live" when gay marriage was outlawed? Wouldn't it actually be "live and let live" if gay people were allowed to marry who they wish, and straight people were allowed the same?
I'm really confused about this part: "It will no longer be live and let live."
How was it "live and let live" when gay marriage was outlawed? Wouldn't it actually be "live and let live" if gay people were allowed to marry who they wish, and straight people were allowed the same?
Maybe they're confusing the text of Maine state marriage law with the lyrics to "Live and Let Die"?
I think we are doing well countering the opposition, I've seen a ton of TV for marriage equality and none for the hate the other side is spewing.
As a black, pan-sexual, disabled Maine resident, I see I lot of shit every, day, but I do believe most Mainers are the live and let live type.
I think as long as we are able to counter the lies, we should do all right. I'm so pissed this went up for a vote.
"I'm so pissed this went up for a vote."
I think that if you're going to go down a path that leads to children being taught in school that homosexuality is normal, and many Christian churches losing their tax-exempt status (essentially saying that Christianity is no different than racism), it's something we should probably get to vote on.
But it won't lead to that so that has no bearing.
There are churches in my town that won't marry people of different races, so I highly doubt anyone is losing their tax exempt status.
I went to Maine schools for 12 years and I don't seem to remember ever talking about marriage one way or another. Or gay sex although we did cover how to have safe anal sex in health class, but gay people aren't the only ones who have anal sex.
Their fears are baseless. We shouldn't get to vote on civil rights.
Um... yes, Massachusetts does touch on that issue. Have you paid no attention to the news? You didn't hear about how Massachusetts schools do teach that gay marriage is normal, and parents cannot object?
If a church is failing to marry interracial couples, they can lose their tax exempt status. Watch the Dr. Phil gay marriage episode, and read the link I provided if you don't believe me.
Maine is not Mass. This is about Maine. Do you know the difference?
Churches may be able to lose it for banning interracial Marriage, but it's not happening here.
I've been to a church that banned interracial Marriage and still does and I can think of many others.
I'm not going to trust Dr Phil as a source, nor am I doing to dig through your posts.
They're both liberal states, and there are good reasons to believe that the supporters of gay marriage will try to make it so parents cannot object to their children being taught about it in school. If they think that banning gay marriage is the equivalent of banning interracial marriage, and they don't think that praents should be able to object to their children being taught that interracial marriage is normal...
Dr. Phil himself did not say it, the experts on his show did.
You think Maine is liberal? Have you been to Maine? Ever? Just because we went blue does not make us liberal as you imagine it.
As a POC from Northern Maine, let me tell you, you are sadly mistaken.
There is no marriage class, so your argument makes no sense.
Why would Maine possibly be any different with regards to teaching about homosexuality in schools? It certainly would not be any different in terms of gay marraige and Christian churches being tax-exempt.
Because teaching about marriage in schools doesn't happen and Maine is not Mass. Treating us the same is dumb move.
They're both liberal states
I'm sorry, no. Maine is an independent state and always has been. It's a state which believes the government should stay out of their lives. They've only in the last 10 to 15 years gone blue because the Republican Conservatives have been passing laws which have been more and more intrusive into the private lives on New Englanders which is what made the shift.
The Democratic party has, in the same time, been in support of legislation that allows people to live their private lives however they choose so long as it affects no other people.
I take it you're not from New England?
I'm from Massachusetts. There is no reason to believe that Maine would not go the same route Massachusetts has. Our public schools do have pro-gay literature, and parents are not allowed to object. You haven't heard about the "King and King" incident?
Naturally, when I send my kids to public school, I'll expect the school to teach them to hate and fear and disrespect the same people I do.
The idea is, schools should not teach anything about gay marriage. They should leave it to the parents. But in MA, they do not, and there is no reason to believe that the gay rights lobby will not try to do the same to public schools in other states - as soon as it becomes politically acceptable to try.
Brilliant. Or you could send your kids to a private school that will only acknowledge the kinds of people you want to share the world with. If you want the state to promote and enforce your prejudices you should try Saudi Arabia. The rest of us are trying to have a free society here.
I did hear about it. And you're allowed to home-school your children however you like to. Homophobic, Racist, Able-ist, Transphobic, whatever you want! So long as they pass the GED, right?
I doubt you're from New England because you can blanket all the New England states together. Each one of the New England states is unique and has its own political and personal make up of people.
Mainers, like the kind that have lived in Maine for generations upon generations, tend to be independent, a bit conservative, and communitarian. That means they know that Jim and Bob live together and are in a couple, don't really get it, but will still shovel out their driveway because if the heat cuts out, Jim and Bob have always been nice, decent people and would take you in until the repair man came out.
That idea, the idea of tolerance is something that bonds New England. You don't have to get it; you don't have to agree, either, but you know it's got nothing to do with you. Mainers tend to be more conservative folk than you're giving then credit for. You're letting DownEast Maine tell the rest of the state what it thinks.
You seem to really know Maine. I hear a lot of "I don't get why you'd want to be married to a guy, but do what you want."
I didn't vote for Bush. I wasn't even old enough to vote at the time.
As you can tell, I'm a conservative. I am not "trolling", or going around smearing or insulting people who do not hold my point of view. I'm trying to understand the opposition, and part of doing that involves asking some common-sense questions, such as:
If you support taking away tax-exempt status from churches who don't do interracial marriages, why don't you support taking away tax-exempt status from churches who don't do gay marriages?
What difference do you claim to see between schools not teaching that interracial marriage is normal, and not teaching that gay marriage is normal?
Whoops, I double-posted. Sorry
I'd like to thank thefutureofconservatism.wordpress.com for generously explaining the logic behind opposition to gay marriage.
1. No one should be allowed to marry for any reason other than to produce babies, unless they're straight.
2. The hilariously high rates of divorce and infidelity among Republicans, red states and heterosexuals demonstrate that these are the people with the moral authority to dictate proper marriage beliefs and behavior to everyone else. This is, in a word, freedom.
It's like... how the greatest opponents of "ableism" think that being mentally handicapped can mean that the state doesn't have a compelling state interest in protecting your life, simply because you are handicapped. Except the fact that Massachusetts' low divorce rates don't actually prove anything...
"It's like... how the greatest opponents of "ableism" think that being mentally handicapped can mean that the state doesn't have a compelling state interest in protecting your life, simply because you are handicapped." That's just gibberish that has nothing to do with anything. You pulled out the wrong note card.
"Except the fact that Massachusetts' low divorce rates don't actually prove anything..."
Of course not. Why would the most liberal state and the first to embrace gay marriage having the lowest divorce rate prove anything? It's the glorious state of marriage and fidelity among red states and "conservatives" that we should be looking at.
There is no such thing as a conservative state in the US. There are relatively conservative states, but there are no authentically conservative states. Abortion is legal in all fifty states, and no place in the world in which abortion is legal can call itself conservative.
What do you think caused the massive spike in the divorce rates around the sixties and seventies? You didn't answer my question.
On a side note, I would be extremely interested in hearing how the "fetal defect" exception for late term abortions does not amount to ableism or eugenics. I've never really gotten an answer to that question.
What do you think caused the massive spike in the divorce rates around the sixties and seventies? You didn't answer my question.
Gay marriage caused it, obviously, because otherwise what's the relevance? Certainly heteros are getting divorced on their own volition or a fair and balanced guy like you would be calling for a ban on straight marriage, right?
On a side note, I would be extremely interested in hearing how the "fetal defect" exception for late term abortions does not amount to ableism or eugenics. I've never really gotten an answer to that question.
On a side note, how can you consider yourself an intelligent adult arguing in good faith when you have to invent positions on unrelated topics and attribute them to me?
Gay marriage didn't exist in the seventies. Adultery, easy divorce, and easy sex outside of marriage did, on the other hand.
I have to invent positions? I'm sorry for mistaking you for a liberal. But I would like you to answer my question.
Oh, do not bring ableism into this.
If you want to know how PWDs feel about abortion, why don't you ask some of us and read our books instead of derailing a thread.
I really didn't mean to derail the thread. I was talking to someone about divorce, and abortion came up. I still kept talking to them about divorce.
I'm not specifically interested in what PWDs think of abortion. I'm just interested in the justification for saying that someone's life is less important to the point of allowing them to be killed simply because they are disabled. Why isn't that ableism and eugenics?
You don't care what PWDs think about an issue that affects them? Classy.
This PWD is very pro choice. If I'm not in someone else's situation, I don't get to tell them what to do with their body, even if I disagree with the reason for their abortion.
It's like... how the greatest opponents of "ableism" think that being mentally handicapped can mean that the state doesn't have a compelling state interest in protecting your life, simply because you are handicapped. Except for the fact that Massachusetts' low divorce rates don't actually prove anything...