Maine Gay Marriage Vote: Voters Repeal Law Legalizing Gay Marriage

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Maine Gay Marriage Vote: Voters Repeal Law Legalizing Gay Marriage stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS


First Posted: 11- 4-09 07:05 AM   |   Updated: 11- 4-09 08:02 AM

What's Your Reaction?
Maine Gay Right

(AP) Maine voters repealed a state law Tuesday that would have allowed same-sex couples to wed, dealing the gay rights movement a heartbreaking defeat in New England, the corner of the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

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.

Story continues below
advertisement

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!

"I'm ready to start crying," said Burnett, a 58-year-old massage therapist, walking out of the ballroom with Swanson at her side. "I don't understand what the fear is, why people are so afraid of this change.

"It hurts. It hurts personally," she said. "It's a personal rejection of us and our relationship, and I don't understand what the fear is."

With 87 percent of precincts reporting, gay-marriage foes had 53 percent of the vote in a referendum that asked Maine voters whether they wanted to repeal a law allowing same-sex marriage that had passed the Legislature and was signed by Democratic Gov. John Baldacci.

"The institution of marriage has been preserved in Maine and across the nation," said Frank Schubert, the chief organizer for Stand for Marriage Maine, which lobbied for the repeal.

For the gay rights movement, which has gained a foothold in New England, it was a stinging defeat. Gay marriage has now lost in every 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, framing same-sex marriage as a matter of equality for all families in a campaign that used 8,000 volunteers to get out the message.

Five states have legalized gay marriage – Iowa, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire and Connecticut – but all did so through legislation or court rulings, not by popular vote.

Portland resident Sarah Holman said she was 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.

While the gay marriage opponents claimed victory, Jesse Connolly, campaign manager for No on 1/Protect Maine Equality, held off conceding until early Wednesday, when he issued a statement vowing to continue to press the issue.

The fight for marriage equality will continue, he told supporters at the Holiday Inn ballroom, where a buffet table included a three-tiered wedding cake – with two grooms standing side by side, two brides standing side by side and the inscription: "We all do!"

"We're not short-timers. We're here for the long haul and whether it's just all night and into the morning, or it's next week or next month or next year. We will be here. We'll be here fighting. We'll be working. We will regroup."

For Burnett and Swanson, the July 10 wedding date – and a reception cruise on Casco Bay – is off.

(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 Nick Sabloff  |  Report Corrections
 
Comments
5015
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo
Post Comment

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (60 pages total)

We won... thought it would be funny to post

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:39 PM on 11/11/2009

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.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:26 AM on 11/08/2009
photo

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.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:57 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.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:53 PM 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.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:19 AM on 11/08/2009
photo

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?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:00 AM on 11/12/2009

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.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:00 AM on 11/07/2009
- CJWebber I'm a Fan of CJWebber 22 fans permalink

Good point. Why hasn't anyone else thought of this?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:49 PM on 11/07/2009
- Romulus I'm a Fan of Romulus 10 fans permalink
photo

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.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:10 PM on 11/08/2009
- ez duz it I'm a Fan of ez duz it 10 fans permalink

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

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:31 PM on 11/05/2009
photo

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

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:40 PM on 11/05/2009
- Romulus I'm a Fan of Romulus 10 fans permalink
photo

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.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:25 PM on 11/05/2009
photo

"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 !

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:48 PM on 11/06/2009
photo

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

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:50 PM on 11/06/2009
photo

PART III

"" 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."

In other words, the definition is what *you* say it is, common usage and contemporary context be damned.

Fair enough; I hold disdain for the intolerant, the hypocritical, the disingenuous, those that hate without cause, reason, nor empirical facts, who seek to keep a minority repressed for no other excuse than what is written in their human DNA, be it skin color, ethnicity, or orientation.

If that be sin then I will answer for it, as I will all of my many sins. But i will be damned before I ever take one step back from standing up for what I know in my heart is right and just, and I will never willingly or knowingly enable those who would act out of hate, bear false witness, and play the hypocrite, yet proclaim their deeds sanctioned by God Himself, by whatever name they may call Him.

Leland R. Erickson

Citizen

PROTESTant

A Beneficiary of Loving vs. Virginia

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:51 PM on 11/06/2009

Aren't there some groups and some people that should not be "tolerated"? Intolerance is not a negative at all. One should not tolerate liars, thieves, adulterers, or murderers. How was this country worse off when it did not "tolerate" homosexuals? The only people who were worse off were the homosexuals-and society for everyone else was much better then than it is today. Today we tolerate homosexuals and society is falling apart, families break up, illegitimacy is rampant, drug abuse and venereal diseases are rampant, and this all comes from "tolllllll­lllerance"­.Islam does not "tolerate" homosexuals yet your crowd tells us we need to tolerate islam. Do you not see the contradiction? You can be sanctimonious in your name calling of those who still have enough common sense, those who know what should not be tolerated, but in the end you are still a sexual deviant. The world was a better place when people like you weren't "tollllllllerate". Intolerance and hatred by the way, do not necessarily go hand in hand.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:41 AM on 11/08/2009
photo

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

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:39 PM on 11/05/2009
- Romulus I'm a Fan of Romulus 10 fans permalink
photo

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.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:35 PM on 11/06/2009
photo

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

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:57 PM on 11/06/2009
- Romulus I'm a Fan of Romulus 10 fans permalink
photo

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.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:59 PM on 11/06/2009
photo

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

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:55 PM on 11/06/2009

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.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:01 PM on 11/05/2009
- ez duz it I'm a Fan of ez duz it 10 fans permalink

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?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:29 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.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:10 PM on 11/05/2009
- retrorio I'm a Fan of retrorio 4 fans permalink

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.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:18 PM on 11/05/2009
photo

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.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:17 PM on 11/05/2009
photo

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.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:18 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

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:24 PM on 11/05/2009
photo

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"

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:26 PM on 11/05/2009
- jadd3065 I'm a Fan of jadd3065 2 fans permalink

Gays with passports go on gay cruises and to places where the age of consent is lower and legal.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:15 AM on 11/08/2009
- skatoolaki I'm a Fan of skatoolaki 78 fans permalink
photo

(...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.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:31 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.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:47 PM on 11/05/2009
- skatoolaki I'm a Fan of skatoolaki 78 fans permalink
photo

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...)

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:39 PM on 11/06/2009
- skatoolaki I'm a Fan of skatoolaki 78 fans permalink
photo

(...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...)

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:39 PM on 11/06/2009
- skatoolaki I'm a Fan of skatoolaki 78 fans permalink
photo

(...continued)

I tell you this. Marriage for "love" was unheard of until the 17th century. Period. People married for economic reasons, to join two farms together or to create powerful allies - parents chose the best partner based on these types of things, not because their children loved each other. They didn't care if they did or not, and they were not allowed to defy their parents and marry as they chose (most wouldn't anyway for fear of being ostracized by their family and community).

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:39 PM on 11/06/2009
- skatoolaki I'm a Fan of skatoolaki 78 fans permalink
photo

I highly suggest reading Stephanie Coontz's "Marriage, A History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage".

From Wikipedia:
an historian, author, and faculty member at The Evergreen State College. She teaches history and family studies and is Director of Research and Public Education for the Council on Contemporary Families, which she chaired from 2001-2004. Coontz has authored and co-edited several books about the history of the family and marriage. Her work has been translated into French, Spanish, Greek, German, and Japanese.

----
Coontz's "Marriage: A History" and "The Way We Never Were" are both used as text books in sociology classes around the world. So you can argue with my statements, but you are also arguing with an expert's synopsis - everything I have written here is based on Coontz's work, and I think she knows what she is talking about.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:44 PM on 11/06/2009
- bannorhill I'm a Fan of bannorhill 29 fans permalink

Marriage was in the 17th century founded to create a legal basis for the family. That still is the basis of marriage today.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:08 PM on 11/05/2009
- skatoolaki I'm a Fan of skatoolaki 78 fans permalink
photo

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.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:31 PM on 11/06/2009
- skatoolaki I'm a Fan of skatoolaki 78 fans permalink
photo

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.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:46 PM on 11/06/2009
- skatoolaki I'm a Fan of skatoolaki 78 fans permalink
photo

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...)

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:30 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.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:51 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

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:09 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?????

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:13 PM on 11/05/2009
- zetacplus I'm a Fan of zetacplus 12 fans permalink
photo

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.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:07 PM on 11/05/2009
photo

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.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:25 PM on 11/05/2009
- zetacplus I'm a Fan of zetacplus 12 fans permalink
photo

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?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:55 PM on 11/05/2009
photo

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....

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:30 PM on 11/05/2009
- AmandaBC I'm a Fan of AmandaBC 560 fans permalink
photo

"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.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:45 PM on 11/05/2009
photo

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.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:52 PM on 11/05/2009

Your right if the issue is separate from religion its the word marriage seriously.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:31 PM on 11/05/2009
- skatoolaki I'm a Fan of skatoolaki 78 fans permalink
photo

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are trying to say at all?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:14 PM on 11/06/2009
- skatoolaki I'm a Fan of skatoolaki 78 fans permalink
photo

Well said, thank you.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:13 PM on 11/06/2009
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (60 pages total)

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect


svn