The Lessons of Maine

The defeat of same-sex marriage in Maine is a real disappointment for those of us who believe that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is the most important civil rights issue of our time. We must remember, though, that changing hearts and minds takes time. Only twenty-five years ago, the very idea of same-sex marriage would have seemed preposterous to almost all Americans. Today, it is a serious issue that closely divides us. Those who oppose same-sex marriage are still hanging on by their fingernails, but the writing is on the wall.

Only a decade ago, 27 percent of Americans favored same-sex marriage. Today, 40 percent of Americans hold that position. Fifteen years ago, there was no state in which 40 percent of Americans supported same-sex marriage. Today, 40 percent or more of Americans endorse this view in 24 states. In every state but Utah, support of same-sex marriage has increased substantially over the past fifteen years. Moreover, there is a clear generational divide. Whereas only 32 percent of Americans over 65 favor same-sex marriage, 59% of Americans between 18 and 29 embrace this view.

Much of this progress has come about as gays and lesbians have come out of the closet. For centuries, gays and lesbians had to hide a fundamental part of their selves, both in shame and to avoid persecution. Unlike other oppressed groups, like women and blacks, gays and lesbians could evade discrimination by leading secret lives. But the price of such evasion was truly awful. Not only did they have to deny an essential part of their own identities, but they were unable to play a meaningful role in the political process. Because blacks and women could not evade discrimination by masking their identities, they had no choice but to be public, and this enabled them to work openly for political and legal change. Gays and lesbians, however, were caught in a double-bind. The need and ability to hide who they were made it impossible for them publicly to assert their rights.

It was only when gays and lesbians courageously stepped out of the closet that real change began. That change came about not only because they could become active politically, but also because people came to realize, sometimes to their shock and dismay, that their children, their neighbors, their friends, their co-workers were gays and lesbians. Despite the adage that familiarity breeds contempt, in this instance familiarity has bred sympathy, understanding and respect. And that process of recognizing and then embracing our common humanity will surely continue.

But to say that the future is inevitable is not to say that the future should not be now. Every day, members of the gay and lesbian community are degraded, denied equal rights, and subjected to indignities by what is still, unfortunately, an unthinking and callous majority. Like women and blacks, gays and lesbians shall overcome. But, as with women and blacks, sooner is better than later.

What is most missing now in the movement to achieve equality in America is courage among our political leaders. Even the leading contenders for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination were unwilling to say that they supported same-sex marriage. This is shameful. And it is especially shameful that our President remains silent. Barack Obama the politician may find it expedient to hedge his position, but Barack Obama the man knows, he must know, that this position is morally wrong. It is time for him to say so, and it is time for him and other political leaders across the nation to step up on this issue and lead. That, after all, is what leaders do.

 

Comments

[logic rulz]

It is shameful that in our modern era we are still discriminating against people by withholding rights.

[ez duz it]

In earlier posts, TruthJusticeForAll claims that, “the Supreme Court already stated there is no right for same sex marriages.­”

Please, TJFA, in which Supreme Court brief did you find this ruling? I would love to read it, especially since no such ruling was made by the SCOTUS.

TJFA also writes, “The vast majority are not interested in changing the definition of marriage to accomodate the hysterical!”

The political and religious right have enjoyed obvious success in denying same sex-couples the legal right to marry the person they love. Indeed, a number of Democrats have politically benefited from aligning themselves with the right, in this regard. And they have done this precisely by re-defining "marriage.­"

But, to say that the “vast majority are not interested in changing the definition of marriage,” contradicts the historical record. Prior to 1996 and the enactment of DOMA, marriage at the federal level was between “two persons.” It was only as recently as 1996 that the federal government RE-defined marriage as between “one man and one woman.”

I am glad that despite the propaganda, denial of the truth, misinformation, as well as manipulation of the past advanced by people, such as TJFA, to deny same-sex couples the right to marry the person they love, there will always be people, here, to challenge them.

I have great hope that, soon, all couples in this country will be able to marry the person they love regardless of their gender.

[RevMetheus]

What I took away from the vote was surprise and hope. It was a close contest, and considering the amount of money was thrown against gay marriage, it was a good fight. 47% to 53% is no landslide.

In all, I believe it came down to the same spurious argument that brought down the casino referendum in 2004, people from away using distorted information in a "think of the children" attack. This time it was that kindergarten students would be instructed about gay marriage, which is silly rubbish, we dont have lessons for straight marriage in kindergarten to begin with.

Considering how much headway has been made in the state, its a sign that things have become more tolerant. I'm sorry gays lost the option (no matter what, marriage is still just an option in life) to get married here, but considering the level of tolerance and anti-discrimination laws we have its a sign that real change will come.

People who say we are bigoted, put this to a vote in your state and see if you get a win or even a 3 percent margin.

[ECBA88]

"People who say we are bigoted, put this to a vote in your state and see if you get a win or even a 3 percent margin."

I wouldn't call Mainers bigoted, it sounds like the vote was pretty close, but I'm from Massachusetts, and I bet we could beat a 3% loss. More importantly, we've never had to.

[davidly]

What is also shameful is that the party leadership is decided for the voters by the DLC and a complicent MSM. Dissenters, even if they represent a majority viewpoint, are not welcome as national candidates. And as far as third or no party candidates are concerned, they are effectively marginalized even more by the big media machinery. Only billionaire third party candidates are treated as near equals.

[Cosatjockomo]

What's with the title, has nothing to do with the article. It doesn't mention a single lesson learned. I believe marriage has always meant a union between a man and a woman. That's what its definition is. As such gays are free to marry. Nothing in the law prevents a gay man from marrying any woman. They simply choose not to. See - freedom. If it's the economic handicap they wish to overcome, (some would say getting married creates the economic handicap - not being single) then they can still enter into that legal economic relationship with a person from the opposite sex, just like everyone else. If it's about love, then marriage is more of the pseudo-religious category and as such, the government should not legislate it, because that would interfere with the freedom of religion. You want to redefine a word that has had a clear and specific meaning for thousands of years. Give it up. You want support of a majority of Americans? Then push for "life unions" or some such thing, don't call it marriage.

[WorldofTomorrow420]

It's all about the word "marriage", because that denotes the acceptance of society at large. Nothing else will do, because equality of access to benefits is not the issue. it's about feeling accepted.

[happytrails]

I am not opposed to same-sex marriage but I truly do not understand the argument if equality of benefits is not the issue. If a state legality recognizes a domestic-p­artnership­, what is stopping people from finding those religious institutions which will perform a "marriage" ceremony? Even if same-sex marriage becomes law, the law will not force any religion to perform a ceremony which the religion deems as against its beliefs. Is this issue truly about the loss of rights?

[antaeus]

Give it up? Beg you pardon, but the author is spot on when he writes that the opposition is "hanging on by [its] fingernail­s." When Spain, one of the largest Catholic countries in Europe, can have same-sex _marriage_, then I hate to break it to you, but it's only a matter of time.

There might have been a point when unions, as in the U.K., could have flown here (_might_, because we do have an "Equal Protection" clause), but the elderly, the Catholics, and the gay haters in general balked at any protection for gay rights. Anyone remember the '80s?

And in case you hadn't noticed, marriage isn't "coming." It's already here.

[TruthJusticeForAll]

I would venture to say not for long if those 5 states put it to a vote. If you all feel it is a civil rights question, why not address your grievances in the courts...e­xcept the Supreme Court already stated there is no right for same sex marriages. The majority believe a marriage is a union between a man & a woman. Maintain your direction & continue to lose or adopt & achieve the success you desire. Seems simple, actually.

[ez duz it]

Hi, Antaeus...

Over the past several months, I have seen you working reasonably, kindly and tirelessly to challenge ideas advanced by some to deny same-sex couples the right to marry the person they love.

I just wanted to commend you for your hard work and consistently positive spirit. It means SO much to me and other LGBT people! Thank you...

Your co-worker in the struggle for equality..­. ex_duz_it

[flyjet787]

Cosatjockomo:
An argument based on semantics.­...Pretty weak, man.

[TruthJusticeForAll]

Actually an argument based upon reality rather than fantasy.

[exxman]

According to Marriam Webster:

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union

[daffey]

I noticed the crucial 'like that of a traditional marriage.' Interesting choice of words. That the same sex union is separated, and qualified by 'like that of' says more than was probably intended by referencing the excerpt from old Webster.

[Liberal Angel]

Marriage is about BUSINESS, not "a union between man and woman". It has ALWAYS been about business, and never about gender. There have been marriages between gay men, and gay women throughout time. There is NO single definition of marriage, and NEVER has been. We don't give a damn about a "majority" support from the rest of the country, we care about our civil rights. We don't need a majority to be ok with our existence, just the government.

[TruthJusticeForAll]

Cool. The courts are into ensuring civil rights...b­ig time. Take your issue to the courts for the resolution you seek. Having election sure is not doing it for you.

[daffey]

There I was reading this article, figuring there wasn’t much to post about when I came across this:

“but Barack Obama the man knows, he must know, that this position is morally wrong.”

For those under 25 years or so, the irony will be missed. You see, the gay rights movement came of age during a period in our history when the notion of anything being morally right or wrong was being called into question. By the 80s (my time in college), many were suggesting that it was impossible to declare something morally wrong or some absolute truth. Therefore, the argument went, those who insist on pushing their values on others by, say, opposing a certain behavior, were living in a faux world. There is no ‘morally wrong’ on some universal scale. Thus, everyone should be able to do as they please; do this, don’t do that, accept this, accept that - live and let live. Watch TV shows from the 80s and early 90s, and you’ll see a lot of ‘live and let live, since no one can say anything is absolutely right or wrong.’

Of course, all the while it wasn’t hard to notice that everyone believed in absolute morals, right and wrong. But that was usually not the case in arguing for things like accepting same sex orientation. So it came as a bit of a surprise to see that, yes Virginia, there are moral absolutes after all. And apparently those absolutes are crystal clear.

[wmfor]

Yes. You are soooo right. There was a time when Americans believed torture was absolutely wrong. Now Dick Cheney and the right-wing moral-relativists believe it is just another strategy.

[Peter Danbridge]

I am disheartened, disappointed, and embarrassed for Maine and for my country because of its flagrant hypocrisy and lack of integrity regarding civil liberties and personal freedoms.

But mostly, I am angry.

"Every day, members of the gay and lesbian community are degraded, denied equal rights, and subjected to indignities by what is still, unfortunately, an unthinking and callous majority."

During a gleeful victory speech, our opposition had the nerve to immediately claim that hate was absolutely not a factor in this voting.

I would have respect for the opposition and would practice tolerance towards their "differing view" were the opposition not so shamelessly intellectually dishonest, which is an insufferable further insult to their degradation of us.

As an aside, everyone who voted to ban gay marriage should have to experience the surreal humiliation that comes with having your civil rights stripped from you, all by popular vote.

It is a horrible indignity, and it is a betrayal.

"Liberty and justice for all."

Not so much.

Not for us.

A convicted serial killer doesn't even have his marriage rights stripped. Jesus Christ.

[flyjet787]

Thank you for putting so clearly into words, what I have been feeling for so long.

[BriGuy72]

Very well said. I just don't understand how people can so casually dismiss their anti-gay feelings as mere "opinions" about an "issue" while being so oblivious to how most gay people perceive them: hateful and threatening personal attacks on our very beings. Like you, I am sick and tired of hearing people take refuge in statements like, "I have the right to express my views. This is a free country." Since when did expressing one's views equate to ensuring that I lack the same rights that you have? I'm tired of the willful ignorance. I'm tired of the rampant stupidity. And I'm tired of feeling like we're begging for crumbs from the masses who are so sorely lacking in empathy and generosity.

[TruthJusticeForAll]

You say:"I would have respect for the opposition and would practice tolerance toward their "differing view" were the opposition not so shamelessly intellectually dishonest, which is an insufferable further insult to their degradation of us." You also state:"But mostly, I am angry."

I would suggest your anger precludes you from exhibiting the "respect for the opposition" you state you have. You insist upon making personal attacks & practicing your own brand of intellectual dishonesty.

[wmfor]

American citizens who are denied the rights of other citizens certainly have the right to be angry.

At least as much right as talk-show-hosts who think giving people affordable health care will bring about a dictatorship bent on wholesale slaughter of all human beings.

[chariotdrvr14]

President Obama has failed the GLBT community. He comes stating he's against discrimination and would end 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' but then falls silent before Nov about the Maine initiative and still hasn't repealed DADT regulations. For me, the most telling moment is during the run up to 2008 primaries when he sold his spiritual mentor Rev. Jeremiah Wright down the river by denouncing him... even when in his heart he knew that Wright was right. One year later and what we see is shaping up to being a very mediocre presidency.

The lesson is still one of hope. That the law got through their state legislature in the first place is still a small but visible sign of progress. It was a close call...and wouldn't have even been that if it weren't for religious forces mired in Dark Ages sentiment. But they'd martialed all their resources for this battle and it still turned out too close to call. It's still a sign that we're progressing and that we can still overcome this. It's still a constitutional question and can be won on constitutional grounds.

We'll get there... we will get there!

[TruthJusticeForAll]

Maybe he only wanted your vote.

[M1]

Yes, we will. I would not worry so much about Obama. He will do what he can but he will always be disappointing to many on Gay issues. He is not our direct enemy (although he has done us harm) but he is no leader on Equality. Heck, he hasn't even helped the people keep their houses from foreclosure. Most of those people were of minority groups swindled into bad mortgages and he just let them go live in tents or on the streets. The bailout money should have gone directly to people in foreclosure proceedings. This is just one thing and there are many. I heard Obama referred to as the Great white half hope on Joy Bayher show. Very fitting and very funny.

[wernerholm]

I have a question that I hope somebody can answer....­.

WHY were the voters in Maine allowed to over ride a vote by the state legislature and signed by the Governor? And could this be done to ALL unpopular legislatio­n... could we have a popular vote and vote to do away with parking tickets? Or the IRS? Could we have a popular vote and remove rights already won by other groups, like vote to keep women from voting? Or to bring back Jim Crow laws?

[RevMetheus]

I'm not sure if this fully answers your question, but: Because we (Maine) have a system that allows for citizen submitted referendums if they can get enough signatures. I dont believe that most of what you listed can end up as a referendum, and I have a feeling that this will end up in the courts anyway.

Maine tried to circumvent the argument that gay marriage is only handed down from the judiciary branch (which is true everywhere it is legal) by passing it in the legislature. I believe the courts decided that it could be put to a vote (not sure on that part) but like I said, I think this one is going to be ended for the moment in the courts.

[TruthJusticeForAll]

Because it is the law in Maine.

[rextrek]

Maine HAD a UNIQUE CHANCE...a­nd they BLEW IT! Maine had a chance to STAND OUT in the HISTORY BOOKS as a INCLUSIVE STATE, a state that Honestly Beleives in Fairness for ALL...and they BLEW IT. Maine now just Lies with the other bigoted hateful states in the US of A...that have shown thier ignorance.­...Maine is NOTHING SPECIAL!

[RevMetheus]

Nope, Maine is nothing special, but you go ahead in your state and put it to a vote and see if you can get a win or even get a 3 percent contest. Gay marriage lost 47% to 53% in a very rural state with long running New England baptist traditions, and it only lost because of fallacious arguments about what would be taught to kindergarten kids told by people not from here with a lot of money to spend.

[TruthJusticeForAll]

Have no fear, Spain awaits.

[langej]

I guess I still need educating: how is someone who supports equality for homosexual civil unions but opposes calling such unions by the word "marriage", morally wrong? Would it be morally wrong to oppose calling the adult status of a boy "Bat Mizvah" if he said that was what he wanted to call it?

The lesson from Maine is that the electorate is not with you yet: they do not see what advantage they gain from changing a long-held custom of the majority to suit a small minority - especially when that minority seems to gain only a semantic benefit.

[WunderY]

The lesson of Maine is that minority rights should not be put to a popular vote in a democracy and the process of voting for civil rights and freedoms is tyranny of the minority by the majority. Another lesson learned is that religion is not an inclusive system and separation of church and state is said to be a foundation of the American system of government but in practice it is not. The most segregated time of the week is Sunday morning.

Maybe we need to have another generation of people die before gay marriage will pass the popular vote in the U.S. To think that only 25% of eligible voters in Maine repealed legislation passed by the Maine legislature. Do we put civil rights on every ballot on election day so that they become the fashion of the electorate, subject to the popularity of the day. Let's put inter-racial marriage on the ballot to see what the outcome would be? I think the results would be disappointing.

4 years of gay marriage in Canada and Spain. The only way that happened was the state told religious groups to get out of the legislature.

[TruthJusticeForAll]

If your civil rights are violated..­.take it to court.

[gaydm]

How telling it is that for you your marriage, if you are in one, is nothing more than a "semantic benefit"

[langej]

My union with my partner has many benefits. Calling it by the name "marriage" is a semantic one, as was the pronouncement that we were now "husband" and "wife".

It seems to me that calling same-sex unions "marriage" requires a deep change in the institution of marriage..­. too deep a change for the electorate of Maine to accept.

Had the vote been to ensure that same-sex unions get identical rights, responsibilities and benefits as marriages, I suspect there would have been a landslide in favour.

[nolabels]

This "long-held custom" position is just not based in historical fact.

[bbmill37]

langej, you're absolutely right. There is no earthly reason why gays insist on calling their partnerships "marriage" except to ram this down the throats of the majority of people who believe in morals, procreation, values that we've carried for hundreds of years. They should be more than satisfied to have pushed this agenda this far, but no. And whether they admit it or not, comparing this "discrimination" to people of color is ridiculous. In that case, they're discriminated against because of who they ARE, as opposed to what they DO as gays are.

[COPerez]

langej - and you - are absolutely wrong.

Marriage is a civil contract let by the government. The government cannot discriminate - or should not - in applying civil law to the people. It's as simple as that and every bit analogous to the civil rights fight of the 50s and 60s.

If you belong to a church and they want to go on discriminating - that is their right. The government has NO such right.

[AgedButNotDead]

Hmmmm...."­...ram this [word marriage] down the throats...­" Lovely! Obviously bbmill37 is not aware of the reality that gays and lesbians do no "choose" who they are, but as blacks, whites and all the other lovely human colors, are born into their sexual identity just as they are to their color, and - as all of us - are created by God.

[Roaming]

Um ... being gay is what you ARE, not what you DO.

And I've always been perplexed as to why self-avowed straight people always seem so bent on using the phrases like "ram this down the throats".

[LLeGrande]

The trouble in Maine is exactly the very same problem across the land - religious bigotry and hatred. It's been going on unabated for centuries. Slave owners were god-fearing christians who spent their time in their church praising their god even as they maintained ownership of human beings.

In many things in this country, it was not necessary to win hearts and minds. Laws from the Legislative Branch and rulings from the Judicial Branch carried the day. Hearts and minds were yanked into submission, or there were penalties. That has been true in ending Jim Crow laws, in bringing the Civil Rights and Voting Rights effects to the country generally, and the old-South specifically. Once law is set, you think what you like, but you comply, or else.

Gays will never get fundamental rights through the Legislative Branch - there's too much religious bigotry eminating from small, rural states who still have two senators each, thereby making legislation very difficult. There are too many religionists for the President to antagonize.

The best hope is this federal civil rights lawsuit brought in San Francisco by the dueling attorneys before the Supreme Court which effectively selected President Bush. The Judicial Branch is the place where the rights of the minorities are to be protected from the tyranny of the majorities. This simple civil rights case will, invariably, go to the Supreme Court.

The Court will likely declare all these 'legal' discriminations unconstitutional, and end this era of religious bigotry against gays.

[Roaming]

Why would it be odd that God-fearing Christians would have a conflict with owning slaves? The Bible (both the Old and New Testaments) has all kinds of things to say about slavery -- which types of slaves are ok to purchase, how hard you can beat them, when you can have sex with the female slaves, etc.) -- everything, that is, except that it's wrong.

[RevMetheus]

"The trouble in Maine is exactly the very same problem across the land"

You are correct in that, but the trouble in Maine that everyone else has is money and misinformation improperly influencing voting. I'm not sure of the final tallies, but last I read, $6 million was spent on this campaign and $1.4 mil of it was spent for gay marriage. A LOT of money came from the same people that influenced the california vote, people not from here.

I think this will end in the judicial branch anyway, Maine was just trying to avoid that by first going to the legislative, and then by referendum to the people.

[TruthJusticeForAll]

Except the Court already stated you have no right to marry anyone of the same sex. That is equal. I do not have that right either.

[charlot]

Are you suggesting that gay people should marry into loveless, sham marriages with people of the opposite sex? That's ridiculous!

[nolabels]

I can't speak for everyone else but when I complain about Obama's leadership, your last paragraph is precisely what I mean.

As it is said, in the below talk, when we are silent on moral issues, the religious right will fill in the gap with nonsense and worse. Since we are in the right, why are we the quite ones? When we stand for civil rights, why should we tread so lightly?

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/liz_coleman_s_call_to_reinvent_liberal_arts_education.html

[nolabels]

*quiet

[M1]

You make an excellent point. We should not. I long to hear a Gay activist dialog with these persecutors of gays and call them out on how they are not following their own faith. How they lied to the voters in California saying, we aren't against gay rights, Gays don't need marriage because they have civil unions" and then in Washington arguing they don't need civil unions.

They lied to and tricked the California voters and no one is calling them out on it.

[BoyInBOYCOTT]

The seething rage towards the bigots in NOM, Knights of Columbus, LDS, FRC, FOF, is just boiling in me.
http://s810.photobucket.com/albums/zz24/Qbear_01/?action=view¤t=CarrieRage2.jpg

The feminist poet Robin Morgan wrote after her gay husband had been bashed

"I'm pregnant with rage, and my pains are coming closer"

[Artemis34]

We'll just have to do ballot initiatives to increase taxes on these entities and reverse any state tax exemptions they may enjoy. Particularly heavy taxes should be levied on out of state organizations. And the KoC is just the money laundering arm of the Catholic Church in these initiative, so they need to be targeted too. The Mormon and Catholic churches have been funneling millions in their hate campaigns. Time to retaliate in kind, vote away their rights.

Their fear mongering is a kind of domestic ter.ror.is­m.

We could also do a ballot initiative that says:

"Only gays and lesbians can vote on gay and lesbian civil rights."

[TruthJusticeForAll]

Gays & Lesbians insisting it is a civil rights matter simply does not make it one. If it is, go to court.

[AdamX]

What is really shameful is the left-wing herd mentality when it comes to same-sex marriage. The issue is benefits, not marriage - as benefits are a RIGHT and same sex marriage is a RITE. Gay fols deserve the same benefits as everyone else - that's the business the government is in. But, the government has no business getting involved in marriage, since marriage is a religious rite. If two people are partners in life, they deserve the same benefits as any other life partners. As long as you insist on making the debate about marriage, you won't readily get what you really want (equal benefits under the law), and you will continue to get folks like me who are utterly against same sex marriage - as a government decided institution.

Can't you remember? Marriage licensing was only invented by the government to keep white folks from marrying blacks! Why continue this ridiculous government involvement in something that is none of their business? Forget the marriage issue, and talk about benefits. Then you will win me over in a heart beat! In the meantime, I will vote against any bill that promotes the idea of same sex marriage.

[Kevins]

The wedding is a religious rite.
Marriage is a state contract. The certificate of Marriage is given by the state, and is legally binding.

[Artemis34]

Civil marriage is a contract between two adults that is recognized by the government.

It has nothing to do whatever with religion.

Gays and lesbians already can have religious weddings, religious marriages and many do. This is not the issue at all.

Government has every right to recognized legal contracts between adults.

US constitution Article 1, Section 10: Limits on the States
Clause 1: Contracts Clause
“ No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law,

or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts,

or grant any Title of Nobility."

So, states must not constitutionally make laws IMPAIRING the obligation of contracts. Civil marriage is a contract. Maine's action is unconstitutional on multiple levels.

Please inform yourself.

[TruthJusticeForAll]

An illegal contract is a ullity. It is the LAW!!

[Pulladigm]

Opponnents of same sex marriage believe they are hurt by homosexuals. Churches do not have to marry homosexuals.
Under law it is between the partners and society. The law sets priviliges and responsibilities of marriage. We are talking of civil rights.
The ceremony ends "By the authority vested in me by the state of **..." That is the crux of this discussion. The authority comes from the state. Society/government has always had a vested interest in keeping track of its people it is not just a function of religion.
Uner the XIV Amendment and the I Amendment denying people their "...equal protection of the laws..." Imposing laws based on religious doctrine is "...law respecting an establishment of religion..­."
Can anyone show me satisfactorily how any of the purposes of our country are undermined if people committing to sharing a life together the rights and priviliges enjoyed by every other couple that have made that committment?
If churches wish to deny homosexuals the sacrament, the fellowship and the community of your church that is their right. The 1st Amendment assures their right. To deny anyone the protection of the law is an abomination under heaven and on Earth. It must not be allowed to exist. Anyone who disagrees with that is well within their rights to leave.
~;^}>

[M1]

Stop treading lightly around the churches. They are openly and blatantly persecuting Gays in full view of the Country. They are not the victims. They raise non-issues like the first Amendment to shield themselves as victims to get away with domestic terrorism. They need to be called out for what they are doing. Don't take their bait.

[Peter Danbridge]

"Why continue this ridiculous government involvement in something that is none of their business? Forget the marriage issue, and talk about benefits. Then you will win me over in a heart beat! In the meantime, I will vote against any bill that promotes the idea of same sex marriage."

If you truly believe the government should not be involved in the issue of marriage, then you should begin a petition effort to dismantle the government's involvement in marriage.

Instead, you justify the maginalization of a minority group.

Frankly, I don't WANT to win people over. These are CIVIL RIGHTS. This debate shouldn't even be happening.

It's humiliating to hear things like "Then you will win me over in a heart beat!"

Where do you get off?

Your attitude is PRECISELY why minority votes should not be put to a popular vote.

The condescending attitudes of you and those like you CLEARLY indicate that an unAmerican caste system exists in this country. This prevailing attitude absolutely says, "This group of people, you are beneath me." And it is precisely that attitude that reminds us why we shouldn't compromise and accept anything less than full equality.

So long as we pay equal taxes, we deserve the SAME government issued relationship contract.

It's really quite simple. You're either for equality or you're not.

[Peter Danbridge]

I suspect folks like you THINK you're fairminded and not prejudiced because you are willing to grant us the same rights, but in reality you have significant anti-gay sentiment. You just realize that we're AT LEAST going to get civil unions, so you take a stance that allows you to live with the fact that you're not for full equality for gays at all, when it really comes down to it. You probably even pat yourself on the back, thinking you really are one stand up guy.

Many in the straight community simply want to maintain the psychological buffer that exists between them and gay people.

It is indeed about keeping us in our place beneath you.

I mean, you tell us to not trivialize over semantics, then turn around and vehemently state that you will not compromise when it comes to semantics.

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth and whenever someone does that, well, I suspect alterior motives and intellectual dishonesty.

[TruthJusticeForAll]

Delusional symptomatology may be reduced with appropriate medications.