Maine Gay Marriage: Judiciary Committee Endorses Same-Sec Marriage

AUGUSTA, Maine — A same-sex marriage bill is going to the Maine Senate and House with a strong committee endorsement.

Eleven of the 14 Judiciary Committee members voted Tuesday to pass the bill, while two voted against it and one proposed sending it to voters in a November referendum. Gov. John Baldacci remains undecided.

Supporters said the bill corrects an inequality that's long existed in Maine law, while one of the opponents pointed to overwhelming constituent opposition to the bill.

Republican Sen. David Hastings of Fryeburg said he prefers sending a straightforward question to voters.

The committee session was interrupted by an outburst by a protester, who shouted that the bill is morally wrong. She was escorted by police from the State House.

Comments

[MsPJM]

By the way, the chair of the committee is gay... and legislators in Maine typically ignore the general public. Isn't it like that in other states? Senator Larry Bliss admitted during the hearing "I am a gay man... this is extremely personal for me." I was listening live. Go to www.dirtydecisions.com to read more.

Issues like these divide our country. I believe preserving the traditiional marriage will win over opening up certain benefits to gay people. All discrimination is wrong. This might sound drastic, but the Civil Rights Act could be abolished. Our Bill of Rights and Due Process Clause should protect against discrimination of any kind. We don't need to list all of the classes. When we do this, we make the average "Joe" the new minority.

[GinnyW]

To all objectors to equal rights for citizens to obtain licenses (for anything -- hunting, marriage, right to sell liquor, etc.): Just be patient! Demographics show that by 2035, more than 50% of the population will be Moslem. Therefore, since this is a democracy, we will have sheria law, which prohibits many marriage possibilities, as well as many other civil rights, especially for women. . . but Miss California doesn't care about women's rights, only those for men, as the marriage contract historically was between two men (father of the bride and husband) for property rights, including the bride who was also merely property.
Just kidding, folks! By 2035 half of Moslems will be like everyone else in that the young tend to reject the superstitions of their parents in favor of rationality, so there probably won't be sheria law here and we will have equal rights to marry, since the superstition that same-sex marriage can destroy an opposite-sex marriage is a silly superstition.

[Skott1]

Hey Senator Hastings . . . when do I get to vote on YOUR marriage?! Gay married people have to pay more taxes than straight married couples because they cannot file a joint return. Gay partners who have insurance (through their employer) for their spouses have to claim that as additional income while straight married people do not. Gay couples have to spend hard-earned money on attorneys simply so that hospitals cannot deny them the right to see a dying spouse while straight couples do not. Gay people have no rights to a partner's social security benefits after death while straight couples do. I could go on and on, but I think you get the point.

What is it about same sex marriage opponents that think they deserve "special rights"? Gay people are citizens of this country with the same responsibilities (and often times more, as pointed out above). So why do you feel you are superior and deserving of all the advantages that come with a formal recognition of your relationship?

[newshawk14]

I happen to be straight, I always have been and always will be, but can anyone tell me how allowing
gay couples to marry will in any way threaten me or my values? The major reason that I support gay
marriage is that it gives them access to a huge body of common law and doesn't require them to
obtain the services of a lawyer, for what we regard as common sense or a common right. I might
add that I would not be in favor of forcing religious leaders to perform the ceremony, but any Justice
of the Peace should be required to.

[afrographia]

I dunno... Folks would have you believe that if gay marriage becomes law, your kids won't be able to figure out their sexual orientation and your own "opposite marriage" (to quote Miss California) will fall apart. Be afraid. Be VERY afraid.

[maggiee]

As a person with the right to marry the partner of my choosing, I have made a commitment to make this my make or break issue: I will never again vote for someone who does not support marriage equality and will actively campaign against anyone who does not.

I have called my state legislators and have let them know. This is a human rights issue. It effects all of us humans.

Four down and 46 + the District of Columbia to go with New York and DC already recognizing any marriage performed in any other state. It's coming; faster and faster.

[maggiee]

The fact is that there are lots of religions.­..even Christian religions, that are a-ok with same sex marriage. Why is that never mentioned? The United Church of Christ and Untarian churches are completely pro-marriage equality and some Reform Judaism Rabbis and Epscopalian priests have been blessing same sex unions for years.

Besides, Jesus had a lot more to say about divorce being a big no-no. Where is the religious outcry concerning the legalization of divorce?

[hollydale1]

Marriage equality has NOTHING to do with religion. It has to do with the 1,400 rights and privileges that are granted to married couples by our government. No one is forcing religious institutions to condone, perform, respect, accept, and/or tolerate gay marriage. We are asking our government to afford us the same rights as heterosexual couples. Rights that include death benefits, adoption of a spouses child, unemployment benefits in the case you spouse's job is transferred and you have to leave yours to move with him/her, hospital visitation, protection from testifying against your spouse, the right to make medical decision in the case your spouse becomes incapacitated. The list goes on and on.

[PresidentRobertBooth]

Even if homosexuality was a "choice", so what?

Seriously, religion is also a choice.

You don't HAVE to be Christian.

You certainly weren't born a Christian, no more than you were born a supply-side economist.

But we still allow religious people to marry.

Let's face facts, opponents of same-sex marriage have got ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to back up their position. No logic, no rationality whatsoever.

[afrographia]

Ha! Love it.

[Peter007]

There has been a myth for 3,000 years that homosexuality is a choice and not a naturally occurring event.
It's similar to being left handed.
The tide has now turned and it will be accepted that it is not a choice but but an inert need by some to decorate in lavender.

[ldavis24]

oh and for all those of you who think people from Maine are so open-minded and live and let live. If this went to a straight vote by the people it wouldn't pass at all. Not by a long shot. Like the rest of the country the young people in Maine are far more progressive and for lack of a better word intelligent but unfortunately young people also fail to come out and vote in large numbers for these things... Lots of old rednecks in Maine. I know! My neighbors are exactly the stereotypes people think of, I guess there is a reason for stereotypes. Often true sadly.

[ldavis24]

I'm from Fryeburg and before I moved a bit further south in New England had to deal with the d-bag that is hastings representing us for quite a while.
Exactly what I would expect from him, instead of flat out saying he is against it, just defer to voters so much easier than taking a stand.

[CitizenJ]

It's all falling apart for the social conservatives.

[PresidentRobertBooth]

***If the Maine Judiciary Committee wants to redefine the word "marriage"***

It's been redefined before.

A few decades ago in America "marriage" didn't include people of different races.

Now it does.

***why don't they just redefine the word "rich" to include everyone. That will solve the poverty issue***

Because that would be completely pointless and an absurd strawman.

***Government has NO business defining what is a private institution***

If that's the case then the government by your logic couldn't legally recognise marriage between persons of opposite sex either

It's a simple fact, the government either recognises ALL marriage types between consenting adults, or none.

[-swift]

For all the heterosexuals in Maine, New York, Iowa, California and the other states where this is being discussed, I am from Massachusettts, so I can tell you first hand the impact allowing gays to marry will have on your life and marraige.

There will be no impact. Absolutely none. Everything you are afraid will happen didn't happen in Massachusetts, and it won't. And it won't where you live either. The only difference you would notice is in your gay friends and acquaintances. They'll be happier and less afraid.

If you've allowed yourself to be filled with hate and fear, let it go. Just let it go. You will feel better. I promise.

[GetRidOfWires]

Wow. So very well said. Bravo.

[maggiee]

you mean the sky is still in its proper place overhead?

[afrographia]

Where are Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson to tell us that God is striking gay-marriage states with swine flu? I know, it's a clearly baseless claim, but when has that ever stopped them (Remember their rants about Katrina and the evils of New Orleans?)

[rizvisa1]

Hope to see Maine soon in elite club of states believing equality for all, and agreeing that prusuit of happiniess (and unhappiness) is every one right