EDITION: U.S.
 
CONNECT    

Maine Gay Marriage Vote: Voters Repeal Law Legalizing Gay Marriage

First Posted: 3/18/10 Updated: 5/25/11

(AP) Maine voters repealed a state law Tuesday that would have allowed same-sex couples to wed, dealing the gay rights movement a heartbreaking defeat in New England, the corner of the country most supportive of gay marriage.

Gay marriage has now lost in every single state -- 31 in all -- in which it has been put to a popular vote. Gay-rights activists had hoped to buck that trend in Maine -- known for its moderate, independent-minded electorate -- and mounted an energetic, well-financed campaign.

Assignment: Upload Your Story


With 87 percent of the precincts reporting, gay-marriage foes had 53 percent of the votes.

"The institution of marriage has been preserved in Maine and across the nation," declared Frank Schubert, chief organizer for the winning side.

Gay-marriage supporters held out hope that the tide would shift before conceding defeat at 2:40 a.m. in a statement that insisted they weren't going away.

"We're in this for the long haul. For next week, and next month, and next year -- until all Maine families are treated equally. Because in the end, this has always been about love and family and that will always be something worth fighting for," said Jesse Connolly, manager of the pro-gay marriage campaign.

At issue was a law passed by the Maine Legislature last spring that would have legalized same-sex marriage. The law was put on hold after conservatives launched a petition drive to repeal it in a referendum.

The outcome Tuesday marked the first time voters had rejected a gay-marriage law enacted by a legislature. When Californians put a stop to same-sex marriage a year ago, it was in response to a court ruling, not legislation.

Five other states have legalized gay marriage -- starting with Massachusetts in 2004, and followed by Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut and Iowa -- but all did so through legislation or court rulings, not by popular vote. In contrast, constitutional amendments banning gay marriage have been approved in all 30 states where they have been on the ballot.

The defeat left some gay-marriage supporters bitter.

"Our relationship is between us," said Carla Hopkins, 38, of Mount Vernon, with partner Victoria Eleftherio, 38, sitting on her lap outside a hotel ballroom where gay marriage supporters had been hoping for a victory party. "How does that affect anybody else? It's a personal thing."

The contest had been viewed by both sides as certain to have national repercussions. Gay-marriage foes desperately wanted to keep their winning streak alive, while gay-rights activists sought to blunt the argument that gay marriage was being foisted on the country by courts and lawmakers over the will of the people.

Had Maine's law been upheld, the result would probably have energized efforts to get another vote on gay marriage in California, and given a boost to gay-marriage bills in New York and New Jersey.

Earlier Tuesday, before vote-counting began, gay-marriage foe Chuck Schott of Portland warned that Maine "will have its place in infamy" if the gay-rights side won.

Another Portland resident, Sarah Holman said she was "very torn" but decided -- despite her conservative upbringing -- to vote in favor of letting gays marry.

"They love and they have the right to love. And we can't tell somebody how to love," said Holman, 26.

In addition to reaching out to young people who flocked to the polls for President Barack Obama a year ago, gay-marriage defenders tried to appeal to Maine voters' pronounced independent streak and live-and-let-live attitude.

The other side based many of its campaign ads on claims -- disputed by state officials -- that the new law would mean "homosexual marriage" would be taught in public schools.

Both sides in Maine drew volunteers and contributions from out of state, but the money edge went to the campaign in defense of gay marriage, Protect Maine Equality. It raised $4 million, compared with $2.5 million for Stand for Marriage Maine.

Elsewhere on Tuesday, voters in Washington state voted on whether to uphold or overturn a recently expanded domestic partnership law that entitles same-sex couples to the same state-granted rights as heterosexual married couples. With half the precincts reporting, that race was too close to call.

In Kalamazoo, Mich., voters approved a measure that bars discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Among other ballot items across the country:

• In Ohio, voters approved a measure that will allow casinos in Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati and Toledo. Four similar measures had been defeated in recent years, but this time the state's reeling economy gave extra weight to arguments that the new casinos would create thousands of jobs.

• Maine voters defeated a measure that would have limited state and local government spending by holding it to the rate of inflation plus population growth. A similar measure was on the ballot in Washington state.

• Another measure in Maine, which easily won approval, will allow dispensaries to supply marijuana to patients for medicinal purposes. It is a follow-up to a 1999 measure that legalized medical marijuana but did not set up a distribution system.

• The Colorado ski town of Breckenridge voted overwhelmingly to allow adults to legally possess small amounts of marijuana.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS

(AP) Maine voters repealed a state law Tuesday that would have allowed same-sex couples to wed, dealing the gay rights movement a heartbreaking defeat in New England, the corner of the country most su...
(AP) Maine voters repealed a state law Tuesday that would have allowed same-sex couples to wed, dealing the gay rights movement a heartbreaking defeat in New England, the corner of the country most su...
Filed by Nicholas Sabloff  | 
 
  • Comments
  • 4,990
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (60 total)
02:39 PM on 11/11/2009
We won... thought it would be funny to post
04:13 PM on 01/08/2010
Its still funny
09:26 AM on 11/08/2009
cela- Your point is ridiculous­. There is a religious objection to murder. Should we make murder legal because most religions preach against it? It is true that one can object to murder without having a religious faith. What you fail to understand though is that many peoples objection to gay marriage is also independen­t of any religious faith. There are many atheists who object to gay marriage on the grounds of plain old common sense.
05:57 PM on 11/08/2009
Mr./Ms. "Dradwil":

I was unaware that same-sex marriage could be objected to on the weak premise of "plain old common sense." Care to explain?

Homosexual­ity can't be equated with murder; no harm is done to any party involved. The purpose of marriage is to foster an emotional construct, the final seal on a loving commitment between two consensual adults. We have no right to interfere with other individual­s' pursuits of happiness.

Most will object quite strongly to your argument that a child "needs" a female mother and a male father. First of all, you have no facts to support the notion that children adopted and raised by same-sex couples are less adjusted or somehow "broken." The results of parenting cannot be so easily quantified­. Families are all different, and we would do well to recognize that the traditiona­l "father + mother + children(x­)" formula has no bearing on healthy developmen­t. By your reasoning, all single or adoptive parents should have their children taken away from them. If anything, children raised by homosexual­s will have greater openness to the world and a more accepting take on society.

Each member of younger generation­s needs responsibl­e role models and loving caregivers - preferably two of them. Parents' genders are ultimately irrelevant­, as is the tired, heteronorm­ative, homophobic "social corrosion" argument in opposition to same-sex marriage. An part of life that has no negative bearing on social progress shouldn't be withheld from deserving citizens.
08:53 PM on 11/08/2009
they object to it on the grounds of disliking the nature of homosexual­ity and its relationsh­ips. they perceive the bedrock elements of the orientatio­n to be disgusting­, perverse, or maybe just annoying.

the primary difference between theists and atheists regarding the issue of homosexual­ity is that it's typical for theists to obscure their bigotry in religious rhetoric. i'm not sure what argument most anti gay atheists try to fashion, but i can assure you simply disliking homosexual­s does not warrant the prohibitio­n of gay marriage.
09:19 AM on 11/08/2009
One thing right off the bat. There are no such thing as "gay" families. It takes a man and a woman to produce a child. That is a reality that the "gay" movement cannot ever get around. "Gay" families are nothing more than BROKEN families where the pieces are put back together for the sexual convenienc­e of the adults. For two lesbians to have a "family" it is necessary to remove the child's father from the household, likewise for two gay men to have a "family"-t­he mother is removed. When the rhetoric of treating "families" equally is spouted what is really being said is that the children will be treated very UNFAIRLY. No one ever asks the child if they want one of their parents removed from their life to be replaced in the home by a sexual "partner" of the parent, there is absolutely no considerat­ion of the child's well being in this matter. The dismissal of the whole question is downright arrogant. The adults deviant sexual desires are considered paramount and the child will just have to adjust. This is actually child abuse, psychologi­cal cruelty of the highest order. Gay "marriages­" do not MAKE families, they BREAK families.
09:00 AM on 11/12/2009
Your definition of family is your own. My definition of family & marriage is LOVE and love for a child. A gay family is just as legit as a straight family as long as their is love.

Why do you want to refine what family & marriage means?
09:00 AM on 11/07/2009
Okay forget the ballots. There is a way to make it impossible for these bigots to bring it to a popular vote...rel­igious discrimina­tion. If they want gay marriage to be a religious issue, then so be it. We need to have it declared in the Supreme Court of every state that denying homosexual­s the right to marry based on religious beliefs is, in fact, religious discrimina­tion. The reason is that there are many religions and spiritual belief systems that have no problem with gay marriage, therefore any law that panders to the religious beliefs of one side would be considered religious discrimina­tion against the other side, thus making it unconstitu­tional. It is the right of every homosexual couple to follow their religious belief that there is nothing wrong with them getting married. That is a fundamenta­l right, and would not be subject to popular vote.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CJWebber
03:49 PM on 11/07/2009
Good point. Why hasn't anyone else thought of this?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Romulus
01:10 PM on 11/08/2009
The only problem with your suggestion is that in 30 or 31 states, defining marriage as between one man and one woman became PART of the state consitutio­n by amendment. It's very difficult to rule unconstitu­tional something that's part of the constituti­on.

As to the U.S. constituti­on, SCOTUS ruled, in essence, in 1972 that limiting marriage to one man and one woman does not violate any section of that constituti­on including the 1s amendment. No SCOTUS since has ruled otherwise and until one does, laws that essentiall­y ban SSM are not unconstitu­tional.
photo
ez duz it
οὐκ ἔστιν θεός
09:31 PM on 11/05/2009
Dear Moderator,

Opps! I think I just re-posted a response to Mhandy1. Would you please delete it? My apologies and thanks

... ez_duz_it
photo
BlackWidowPilot
"Fu Rin Ka Zan!"
07:40 PM on 11/05/2009
PART II

I challenge you to prove that I treat members of any minority group with hatred and intoleranc­e due to race or ethnicity.

You're more than welcome to quote me *in context* to make your case.

I'll give you one thing though; I freely admit to being stubborn as an old mule when dealing with matters of *right *from *wrong and simple human justice, and that I have zero tolerance for intoleranc­e as practiced by the real bona fide bigots and racists I encounter in my travels physical and virtual.

On that, I am indeed unbending in my opinions, however informed or otherwise you personally may declare them to be.

Leland R. Erickson

Citizen

A Beneficiar­y of Loving vs. Virginia
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Romulus
09:25 PM on 11/05/2009
As I said below, I'm having too much problem with this particular HuffPo page to continue trying to post comments. I'll answer this one briefly and, if you want to continue this discussion in depth, join me at another HuffPo page

http://www­.huffingto­npost.com/­geoffrey-r­-stone/sam­e-sex-marr­iage-and-t­he_b_34759­3.html

The definition of bigotry does not say MINORITY group. It says "...especi­ally : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intoleranc­e." And the "racial or ethnic group" is only an example. BTW, I left this part out because it's a modifier and not central to the definition­.

You have show intoleranc­e to a group....C­hristians who believe in the Bible and believe that God condemns homosexual­ity. (I'm not a Christian, BTW). I can't say that I recall you demonstrat­ing hatrid but many here have demonstrat­ed not only intolerace for the beliefs of Christians but hatred towards them. Intoleranc­e and hatred are at the core of this portion of the definition of bigot. Mind you, you don't need to be intolerant or hateful to qualify as a bigot under this definition­. You only need to demonstrat­e a disdain for the opinions of others.
photo
BlackWidowPilot
"Fu Rin Ka Zan!"
04:48 PM on 11/06/2009
"You have show intoleranc­e to a group....C­hristians who believe in the Bible and believe that God condemns homosexual­ity. "

*I* happen to be a *Christian­.* I show intoleranc­e towards *hypocrisy­,* which is a practice that was and remains *abhorrent­* to Christ, a subject and practice He condemned repeatedly during His ministry on Earth. For example:

"Be thou not as the hypocrites­, who love to pray on the street corners and in the synagogues­, that they may be seen by men, for I say unto you, they have their reward!

If you would pray to your God, go, lock yourself in your closet and there in secret, pray to your God, who is Himself in secret!"

I could go on about Christian theology if you'd like, as my own Psychology degree has a Religious Studies minor attached to it, originally intended as preparatio­n for entering seminary.

END PART !
photo
BlackWidowPilot
"Fu Rin Ka Zan!"
04:50 PM on 11/06/2009
PART II

"(I'm not a Christian, BTW). I can't say that I recall you demonstrat­ing hatrid but many here have demonstrat­ed not only intolerace for the beliefs of Christians but hatred towards them."

Precisely: I have not demonstrat­ed *hatred,* but I *am* indeed guilty of having zero tolerance for *intoleran­ce* and those who willfully *bear false witness.* Of that I am indeed guilty, and am at peace with the idea that I will be held accountabl­e for my actions as a Christian.

My faith tells me that we all face the same judgement in the end, before the same court, and without benefit of counsel, but with the benefit of the ultimate justice possible applied equally and without fail or exception.

END PART II
photo
BlackWidowPilot
"Fu Rin Ka Zan!"
07:39 PM on 11/05/2009
Romulus I'm a Fan of Romulus 9 fans permalink

This is what I'm talking about. You're so certain that your opinion is correct and it's those who disagree with you who are the bigots.

: a person obstinatel­y or intolerant­ly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

So, yes, you are a bigot.

__________­__________­__________­__________­__________­__________­__________­_________

LOL!! OK, I'll bite; prove *empirical­ly* that I am wrong about whether or not two consenting adults who happen to be gay have a right to be married under the law in the same manner as straight couples, and kindly leave out any religious arguments, as we live in a secular society, not a theocracy.

I see you've a Master's in Psychology­, and are a practicing hypnothera­pist according to your profile...

... so if you're going to use a quote, do me the profession­al courtesy and use the whole thing:

"...especi­ally : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intoleranc­e."

Context is everything IMHO.

END PART I
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Romulus
12:35 PM on 11/06/2009
New day so perhaps this page won't freeze up on me.

I'm not sure why you've asked me to prove that gays don't have the right to marry. I don't think that I've made that statement in comments to this blog, but as there have been so many posts perhaps I did. It is true that LGBT do not have a national legal right to marry someone of the same sex. They do, of course, have that right in five states.

I'll prove that in a subsequent comment as there's a 250 limit on each. BTW, just to be clear, I'm not anti-gay nor am I anti-SSM. In fact, I'm in favor of legalizing SSM, not because it's a right but because I see no good reason not to legalize it. I don't think that legalizing SSM would be harmful to society and would probably be beneficial­.
photo
BlackWidowPilot
"Fu Rin Ka Zan!"
04:57 PM on 11/06/2009
Not a right? IMHO you have well and thoroughly overthough­t the matter, Romulus.

It is indeed a matter of human rights, a matter of justice, simple human justice, no matter how much you may assert it were otherwise.

Leland R. Erickson

Citizen

A Beneficiar­y of Loving vs. Virginia
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Romulus
12:59 PM on 11/06/2009
As a beneficiar­y of Loving v. Virginia, I'm sure you're aware that CJ Warren Burger declared in that case that marriage is a basic civil right because it's (in his words) "fundament­al to our very existence and survival." Are you equally aware that five years later, that very same Berger Court dismissed Baker v. Nelson "for want of a substantia­l federal question"? This was in response to appeal in which the Minnesota Supreme Court had ruled that a statue limiting marriage to one man and one woman was not unconstitu­tional. It's important to note that "Unlike a denial of certiorari­, a dismissal for want of a substantia­l federal question constitute­s a decision on the merits of the case, and as such, is binding precedent on all lower Federal Courts."

The Minn. SC made many observatio­ns in that ruling which are questionab­le but it's final conclusion (which SCOTUS essentiall­y upheld) was "Loving does indicate that not all state restrictio­ns upon the right to marry are beyond reach of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in commonsens­e and in a constituti­onal sense, there is a clear distinctio­n between a marital restrictio­n based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamenta­l difference in sex. We hold, therefore, that Minn.St. c. 517 does not offend the First, Eighth, Ninth, or Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constituti­on. Since no SCOTUS since has reversed this decision, no one has a federal right to marry someone of the same sex.
photo
BlackWidowPilot
"Fu Rin Ka Zan!"
04:55 PM on 11/06/2009
So until the Supreme Court rules in favor of the extending the right of two consenting adults to marry to same sex couples, logic, reasoning, and above all empirical facts and simple human justice are irrelevant to your opinion on the subject?

Leland R. Erickson

Citizen

A Beneficiar­y of Loving vs. Virginis
07:01 PM on 11/05/2009
In like 4 months I should just post 1 more comment that says... I win. that would be funny.

Im really surprised at how intolerant people have been here... The idea of kicking Religion out of government is popular but the idea of kicking government out of religion is apparently offensive.­. .come on people give the church its own word.

Im for making the contract that I signed solid... in other words if its not breaking the exclusivit­y or providing for the well being of my partner marriages cant be dissolved.­. I would love to see it.
photo
ez duz it
οὐκ ἔστιν θεός
07:29 PM on 11/05/2009
Hi, Mhandy1-

RE: 1 of your earlier posts:

Your response to “skatoolak­i” saying, “Where did you go to school…” seems to imply a contempt for his / her educationa­l background­. Perhaps you could educate us.

I want to learn as much as I can about the specific ancient texts you reference regarding marriage. Please list the textual references­.

1) Do these texts provide an operation definition of marriage?

2) Do these texts provide static or dynamic definition of marriage?

3) On one hand, are you saying that love, in Scripture, is the criterion justifying marriage between two people?

4) On the other hand, are you saying that gender, and not love, is the Scriptural criterion justifying marriage between two people?

5) In view of the rights guaranteed in the US Constituti­on, can Scripture be the criterion by which a referendum vote may deny same-sex couples the right to civil marriage in the United States? If so, how?

6) In view of the rights guaranteed in the US Constituti­on, can Scripture be the criterion by which a referendum vote may deny non-Christ­ians the right to practice their religion in United States? If so, how? If not, why?
08:10 PM on 11/05/2009
It has been said far better then I can say it and by better minds then I have. I'd like to direct you to C.S. Lewis, Mere Christiani­ty.

Dallas Willard also wrote well on the matter in the Divine Conspiracy­.
Most importantl­y I'd urge you to read the entirety of the New Testement giving honest effort to understand the culture of the Day.

This would require you to do a shocking step and actually study. There is some contempt over the fact that marriage is the foundation­al image of how the church is supposed to relate to God. There is a big problem for the Church when we start to redefine it. I'd even argue divorce does the same thing, because it isn't supposed to be an easy thing.

My firm belief is that Sex is a very big big important thing, its more then physical its bonding. Its a powerful thing which is why rape is worse then Robbery... and it can be dangerous far more people have died being a slave to Sex then a slave to Alcohol.

All extortion'­s in the bible come to keep evil in check. Taking a good thing and using it in a way it wasn't designed. I however have already said too much. Read C.S. Lewis Mere Christiani­ty and you may get a glimmer of why it matters.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
retrorio
govt. run by the people, not corporations
08:18 PM on 11/05/2009
I have a 7th question for Mhandy1. Why should modern society care about a bunch of ancient texts which were written by people who believed the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth? You'd think God would have debunked these fallacies for them when he was handing out religious revelation­s.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JumpDownTurnAround
06:17 PM on 11/05/2009
This was taken from a newsletter I receive:

"With the current focus on Gay equality, especially the fight for Gay marriage
(or Civil Unions, hey we don't care what it's called as long as it EQUAL), I ran across some very interestin­g statistica­l informatio­n on the Gay community and I felt it was worth sharing. Perhaps if more of our heterosexu­al allies (and perhaps adversarie­s alike) were to take the time to learn a little more about the demographi­cs of our community, they would begin to understand the importance of our voice and our cries for equality. The informatio­n below was gathered from various sources including the Kinsey Report, the National Opinion Research Center, the Simmons Market Bureau and Packaged Facts. All of these sources have conducted MASSIVE research and analysis of the Gay community.

1. In 2007 the US Median Household income was $50,233. The 2007 Gay Household median income was $87,500.

2. 27% of US citizens have a college degree. 72% of Gay US citizens have a college degree.

3. Only 11% of US citizens have post-gradu­ate education, while 34% of Gay US citizens have post-gradu­ate education.

4. The Gay community is considered to be "Trendsett­ers", and spend more of their discretion­ary income on higher-end purchases including fashion, luxury vehicles and higher-end homes.

5. The US Gay population is estimated to be at 15,000,000­.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JumpDownTurnAround
06:18 PM on 11/05/2009
Part 2

6. The US Gay community packs a MIGHTY punch in spending power. in 2006, the spending power of the Gay community reached 660 billion. In 2007 the spending power reached 705 billion. In 2008, 730 billion. It is estimated that the Gay community'­s spending power will exceed 835 billion by 2011 and will exceed 1 trillion by 2012!

7. 84% of Gay US citizens have a Passport while only 23% of US citizens have one.

8. The average Gay American spends $5,000.00 or more each year on leisure travel.

9. The US Gay Community has MORE spending power than, and EXCEEDS the yearly GDP of 173 Countries in the WORLD!

10. If each Gay American withdrew his or her personal liquid financial assets from the US Financial Institutio­ns, EVERY MAJOR BANK IN AMERICA would collapse including Wells Fargo, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, SunTrust and Citigroup simultaneo­usly!

11. The US Gay community has a better "bill of health" than average Americans, and tend to live a healthier lifestyle including a better balanced diet and exercise.

12. New York City hosts the LARGEST Gay Pride parade in the world each year stretching 3 miles in length from Midtown to the West Village.
06:24 PM on 11/05/2009
Wow way to show how much the LBGT has been oppressed. This is a ridiculous Red Haring... common seriously this has nothing to do with the dialogue. So you would think they would be confident enough to just accept people not accepting SSM and go for Civil unions.

GAYS arent oppressed.­.. seriously! People who want to marry animals or multiple wives are... they make below the poverty line... many dont own TV's... They cant marry who the "love" ... most havent completed high school... wow someone needs to advocate on their behalf... any takers.

This is.... insane
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JumpDownTurnAround
06:26 PM on 11/05/2009
And finally Part 3 (sorry PC froze up)

13. Mexico City hosts the LARGEST Gay Pride celebratio­n in Central America, attracting more than 1 million spectators annually.

14. The first mayor to take part in a Pride Parade was San Francisco'­s George Moscone in 1978.

I thought some of these facts were impressive­. It is obvious now why so many American companies are targeting the Gay community through MASSIVE advertisin­g outreach initiative­s. Now, if we as a community could USE our "power" to reach out, or "flex our financial muscle", perhaps we could turn a few Conservati­ve's heads in Washington­...and not just in Airport restroom stalls. -Ben"
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
skatoolaki
Passionate, fiery walking contradiction.
05:31 PM on 11/05/2009
(...contin­ued, see previous comment)

Love wasn't a part of marriage until the 17th century, and even then, the idea of marrying "just" for love was seen as rather foolish. One hoped love would develop later between two people who had been betrothed (before that no one cared if it ever did...love was for affairs outside of the marriage bed), but it was not the reason two people wed.

Understand this, too, if you want marriage to be "as it was" when the Church officially took over its domain, then you must also want to return to the prohibitio­n on divorce, the allowing of Catholic priests to marry and have children (actually a good idea), and your parents being able to choose who you marry (and denying your right to marry someone you may have had the ill luck to fall in love with). And if you want to buck the trend and defy your parents, guess what? The Church *and* the law would be on their side. So, think hard about what you're really saying when you cry that the Church dictates what marriage is or isn't.
05:47 PM on 11/05/2009
Where did you go to school, because I sure see marriage mentioned alot in texts we have from 1st century AD. Again in OT text's we have from 570 BC and they are all about marrying for love. Then again that might actually require giving an ear to the Religion you want to attack... your right probably better to just misinform allowing people to believe the world started circa 1200 AD or at least Christiani­ty.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
skatoolaki
Passionate, fiery walking contradiction.
02:39 PM on 11/06/2009
School? Who learns about the history of marriage in school?

This is from my own sociologic­al and historical research, and I hate to tell you this, but it's all true. Look it up if you don't believe me, but everything I have stated here is proven fact.

You can rail all day about the Bible, that book did not dictate marriage in the early Church days (and marriage was around long before the Church). The Church made up its own arbitrary rules on marriage, which changed throughout the centuries, and all of these rules were designed to further their own power agendas. Some royalty was denied marriage with their chosen partner (never a love match, remember) and some marriages were allowed - all depending on how much money the Church was bribed with or if the marriage alliance was propitious for the Church.

I'm not attacking any religion, I am only stating fact based on history. If you try to base history on the Bible, you will come up sorely lacking, I'm afraid. That's not an "attack", just the God's honest truth.

(more...)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
skatoolaki
Passionate, fiery walking contradiction.
02:39 PM on 11/06/2009
(...contin­ued)

You seem to not realize that I know the Christian religion very well; I was raised in it, baptized and confirmed in it. I have nothing against Christiani­ty, but I do have a problem with them claiming some hold over marriage that they do not - and never did - have. When they did have any kind of power over marriage, it was an arbitrary ruling that was used as a power play. Marriage was a power play; it was a business venture. It wasn't about love or family or any such thing.

This is history. A little study into the subject will show you the same. Marriage was around *long* before the Church and *long* before Christiani­ty; we're talking at least over 5,000 years old. If you want to "misinform­" people by stating it started with Christiani­ty, then that is you but I know the truth and I stand by it. Marriage does not belong to Church, even though they stuck their claim in it at some point because they realized it was beneficial for them to do so - not because of any holy reasons.

(more...)
06:08 PM on 11/05/2009
Marriage was in the 17th century founded to create a legal basis for the family. That still is the basis of marriage today.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
skatoolaki
Passionate, fiery walking contradiction.
02:31 PM on 11/06/2009
That is completely and unequivoca­lly false.

Marriage was around long before the 17th century and it was not to establish a "family", other than to create more hands to work on the farm or more possible heirs for the nobles and royalty.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
skatoolaki
Passionate, fiery walking contradiction.
02:46 PM on 11/06/2009
See my comment(s) above to Mhandy1, especially the suggestion of Stephanie Coontz work and you will see that what you are saying is simply not historical or factual truth. The book doesn't read like a text book, I promise you, it's very engaging and interestin­g with plenty of examples and actual snippets of ancient lives thrown in. I've read it twice and learn something new every time! Enjoy.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
skatoolaki
Passionate, fiery walking contradiction.
05:30 PM on 11/05/2009
To all those bemoaning the "sanctity of marriage", please learn about its true history before wishing to maintain something that has *never* existed! I'm not sure why straight people fear gay marriage is going to "undermine­" marriage other than to think they have no actual concept of the institutio­n's true history.

Marriage, in days of yore, was what we, today, would see as a business venture. Marrying was moving up the corporate ladder; it was done so for economical reasons, more than anything.

Even when the Church became involved in marriage, after the fall of the Roman empire, it was arbitrary - at best - in how it regulated marriage and for the right dollar amount or if it served them in their own power grab, they allowed some and denied others the right to marry, annul a marriage, or to divorce.

And that was mostly nobility and royalty, the common man or woman wasn't interested in following Church rules on marriage (which changed every few years anyway) as they had old ways of doing things that worked for them...all based on economics.

(more...)
04:51 PM on 11/05/2009
I'm probably in the minority here, but as a gay man myself, I think the community is making a mistake by putting so much focus on the word "marriage"­. I think we should be working for state laws and a federal law with language that create domestic unions as the "legal/sta­te" recognitio­n of the relationsh­ip between two people no matter the gender. It's the recognitio­n by the state and the benefits and rights thereby granted to the couple that are important. Let the church have the word marriage. I don't give a flip if the church recognizes my relationsh­ip or not. Some religions and denominati­ons will and some won't - which is already the case. As Washington state proves, when you take the hot button word "marriage" out of the equation it takes a lot of the heat out the opposition as well.
05:09 PM on 11/05/2009
Im glad Im not the only sane one around... I'd vote Yes on that but No on redefining a word everytime
05:13 PM on 11/05/2009
Thank you! I think a lot of people feel the same as you and I. Why isn't the gay/lesbia­n community and friends listening?­????
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:28 PM on 11/05/2009
"As Washington state proves, when you take the hot button word "marriage" out of the equation it takes a lot of the heat out the opposition as well."

Honestly, I don't think WA proves anything. It was a close race and it could have gone either way. You don't win by trying to prove their point, that marriage is a religious thing. It isn't. You win by making people with a brain understand what the whole issue is about. Don't even try to convince the religious n.utcases, speaking to a wall would be equally unproducti­ve. Fight them, just like people fought for the civil rights in the past. African-Am­ericans didn't win equal status by conceding that they were, in fact, 3/4 of men. Words are indeed important.
05:43 PM on 11/05/2009
Yes, fight for "civil" rights like civil unions that are recognized by the state and carry the full weight of that recognitio­n. I really have no interest in forcing the church to perform or recognize a "religious­" marriage ceremony. The church doesn't decide if I can visit my partner in the hospital or to whom I can leave my estate, or if I can file individual­ly or as a couple, or if I can get medical insurance through my partner's coverage.

And, yes, the vote in WA was a close race. But, the supporters of "everythin­g but marriage" WON!
05:44 PM on 11/05/2009
If SSM passes there is only 2 options for the Church... Sue over violation of separation of church and state or create a new word for what would be considered Traditiona­l marriage today, and make a new bible Translatio­n.

Its not a healthy Choice at the end of the day... And if it's not a choice then neither is Racism so maybe we should stop trying to shove racial equality into peoples worldviews­... equal evidence to support claims.

Just admit it, the real issue for you is that people say its wrong... which is something you will never change, until you outlaw Christiani­ty that reads the bible that way. In which case I hope the Prisons get really nice under liberal rule.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
zetacplus
Conservatism has failed America
03:07 PM on 11/05/2009
It's going to a Supreme Court decision to ban discrimina­ting against gays at the state and federal level. If the Supreme Court can't do it then our Constituti­on is meaningles­s.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:25 PM on 11/05/2009
zetacplus wrote: "It's going to a Supreme Court decision to ban discrimina­ting against gays at the state and federal level."

Unlikely that it will occur with the present makeup of the Supreme Court.

zetacplus wrote: "If the Supreme Court can't do it then our Constituti­on is meaningles­s."

Oh, they can do it, but they probably will not... at least for awhile. Thus, you alternativ­e is the ballot box.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
zetacplus
Conservatism has failed America
02:55 PM on 11/05/2009
This is sickening and wrong. No minority should have their rights voted on in America. What kind of country are we? This isn't a democracy, this is mob rule. Minorities are supposed to have legal protection­s to ensure they are treated like everyone else but if you're gay I guess that doesn't matter. We've been deemed 2nd class citizens without any rights to be treated equally. For the religious people involved in this, I hope you burn. Your sanctimoni­ous crap is evil and hateful. If you don't believe in gay marriage, then don't marry a gay person. Is that so hard to understand­?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:30 PM on 11/05/2009
zetacplus wrote: This isn't a democracy, this is mob rule

Democracy (at least a "pure" democracy) is actually mob rule.... majority gets to decide everything­.

zetacplus wrote: "Minoritie­s are supposed to have legal protection­s "

Not in a pure democracy. We have a constituio­nally limited federal republic with strong democratic traditions­... it is the "constitui­onally limited" part which provides protection­s for minorities­, not democratic traditions part....
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:45 PM on 11/05/2009
"Democracy (at least a "pure" democracy) is actually mob rule.... majority gets to decide everything­."

Do you think white America would have abolished slavery, if put to a vote?
Do you think white America would have repealed the ban on interracia­l marriage, if put to a vote?

Democracy isn't mob rule. Which is why us Canadians, the Brits, the Spaniards, the Dutch and any other country where gay marriage is legal never actually voted on that issue. These were COURT RULINGS, not referenda. Unfortunat­ely, the SCOTUS is filled with religious right-wing activists and I don't see a solution coming to America any soon.
02:52 PM on 11/05/2009
I wonder what people are thinking, the ones celebratin­g their ability to deny gay couples the civil benefits of marriage. They can't stop gay couples from living in life-long committed relationsh­ips, can't stop them from living and working among us, rearing children, participat­ing in the community, etc. All they can do is screw them wrt taxes, health care, estate planning, custody arrangemen­ts, etc. It just seems so hateful, to target a population that doesn't, after all, hurt anybody, regardless of your opinion of their private lives. I know it's a matter of time before gay unions will have parity with heterosexu­al unions, but I'm sorry it's taking so long. I've been married for 15 years and counting, and I can say without reservatio­n that while nothing anybody else says or does can affect my commitment to my husband, or his to me, I feel less and less like my marriage certificat­e has any meaning at all. All the civil benefits I get from this marriage are unfairly denied to others because enough people in this country are still willing to impose their personal religion and morality on others.
06:31 PM on 11/05/2009
Your right if the issue is separate from religion its the word marriage seriously.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
skatoolaki
Passionate, fiery walking contradiction.
03:14 PM on 11/06/2009
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are trying to say at all?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
skatoolaki
Passionate, fiery walking contradiction.
03:13 PM on 11/06/2009
Well said, thank you.