Wednesday
04Nov2009
THE PAIN IN MAINE...
Wednesday, November 4, 2009 at 01:20PM IF only the people were as enlightended as the liberal legislators!
Maine voters overturned the state’s same-sex marriage law yesterday, delivering a potentially crushing blow to gay-rights advocates after a year when their cause seemed to be gaining momentum with legislative and legal victories in four states. The “people’s veto’’ came six months after Maine’s law was approved, and one year after California voters rejected gay marriage by a similar margin.
You can understand why here in the EUSSR the elite prefer NOT to give people the chance to vote!
A victory for the family and a setback for those who would corrupt the meaning of the word marriage.
tagged Gay "marriage"
Gay "marriage" 
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (81)
There are things that no humane and civilized society can ever accept. This is one of them.
Guys, at some point you may want to listen to the people.
This idiotic battle hopefully will come to and end before long
The only places where this farce has come in are where it has been snuck in by judges or by the threat of court rulings.
I will never understand why people are so hateful as to vote against the liberty and equality of their fellow citizens.
But they have, and that is that.
Liberty and equality have nothing to do with any of this, for reasons gone over a thousand times on these pages.
I would have expected some header with "Maine Man", David.
>>You can understand why here in the EUSSR the elite prefer NOT to give people the chance to vote! <<
The people in Europe have ample opportunity to vote; and I've no doubt you'd have to go pretty far to the east and south, and at best into some Muslim country, before you'd get a majority sharing your opinion.
The only survey results Ive seen were from the Netherlands, where 82 p.c. were in favour.
>>A victory for the family <<
LOL; what absolute nonsense! It must be a pretty bleak family that is better off because of a vote against gay marriage in some backwater.
They'll outlaw this voting malarky soon enough over there.
Well done to the good people of Maine for a sane and civilised decision.
Alas, no doubt the devient tendency will be back, no conservative vote ever being allowed to stand for long.
The judges and politicians denied the vote to the people of Massachusetts and New Hampshire. Had that not happened, even those states would have done the same thing.
If they allowed votes in places like England and Ireland I have no doubt that they too would go the same way.
Those who deny this have a very incomplete understanding of human nature and society.
None of this has anything to do with gay bashing or gay rights. It has everything to do with which social models a society should recognize. You don't recognize polygamy or polyandry, and you don't recognize this thing either. End of.
President Obama and the people of Maine are in agreement on the issue: "No" to gay marriage.
Though I suspect that Obama ( and most Dem politicians ) has been secretly for it for some time. They were waiting for society to evolve or to progress a bit more.
Phantom: I think Obama insincerely panders to the Gay Lobby not vice versa.
Actions speak louder than words - I didn't see Obama in Maine campaigning for gay marriage, and what happened to repealing "don't ask, don't tell" in the military?
>>If they allowed votes in places like England and Ireland I have no doubt that they too would go the same way.
Those who deny this have a very incomplete understanding of human nature and society.<<
Well, I'd say they have at least a more complete understanding of English and Irish society than you.
Although on the other hand you may be closer to an understanding of Islamic society than they.
If he campaigned for this pig it would have hurt him politically and he would have had the stain of a loss on him.
There is no society on the face of the earth where the common people would vote this in. Fact.
It's just a damn shame that the radical lefties highjacked this issue and attempted to paint it as a 'civil rights' issue - when very solid progress was being made by the less radical in the gay community to secure privileges enjoyed by heterosexual married folk.
Monica
>>There is no society on the face of the earth where the common people would vote this in. Fact.<<
Phantom, now you're extending your lack of understanding to the face of the whole earth!
Fact. End of. etc.
The only way this pig has been enacted anywhere on earth has been to sneak it in with judges and politicians and commissions in the metaphorical dead of night and at times under the threat of a lawsuit. It has never happened any other way, and it never will happen any other way.
The vehicle has run out of gas, in this country. The people have spoken, even if some pretend not to hear.
@ Phantom: "If they allowed votes in places like England and Ireland I have no doubt that they too would go the same way."
"There is no society on the face of the earth where the common people would vote this in. Fact."
It seems like men and women are from Earth, Phantom is from Mars! LOL
>>The only way this pig has been enacted anywhere on earth has been to sneak it in with judges and politicians and commissions in the metaphorical dead of night and at times under the threat of a lawsuit. It has never happened any other way, and it never will happen any other way.<<
Phatom, admit it, you don't know what you're talking about.
The facts speak for themselves, in all the continents
Sorry your pet cause got beat.
So sorry, Noel. (Well, I'm not really sorry!) Phantom is correct and if you spent 10 minutes in an attempt to gather facts about this issue, you would know that. Then you wouldn't look so silly telling Phantom that he doesn't know what he's talking about.
MA is just one example. The state supreme court forced the legislature to write the law.
I will be very surprised if the radicals allow the vote in ME to stand.
The facts speak for themselves, in all the continents
The Phantom
You're facts seem to be wishful thinking.
Sorry, but two people of the same sex sharing their lives together is not marriage. It can be called many other things or nothing at all. There are lots of different sex couples living together outside of marriage, who don't insist on their relationship being equated with "marriage."
Marriage, in all the societies I have ever read or heard about, is a relationship between a man and a woman( sometimes women) in which they commit themselves to each other, witnessed by the whole community, and usually with some religious/moral imput.
The usual or expected outcome is that they will have children. Those children will benefit from (among other things) having a male and female role model who will be the major influence in shaping their childhood. It passes down the generations and binds families together.
It may be expressed differently and practiced differently, but that historically is what marriage is.
That is why we are all here today.
By contrast a society made up of same sex "married couples" would last.... one generation??
Perhaps that's why it never ever caught on.
>>The facts speak for themselves, in all the continents<<
>>Phantom is correct and if you spent 10 minutes in an attempt to gather facts about this issue, you would know that. Then you wouldn't look so silly telling Phantom that he doesn't know what he's talking about.<<
Monica,
Well, let's look at the facts, shall we?
First of all, Phantom said that such legislation was never introduced anywhere "on earth" without subterfuge.
So all I have to do to show he is talking bullshit is to name one country where it was introduced as a normal law.
And I can name several.
He is also talking nonsense when he claims that the people of Britain and other countries would vote against such laws if they were able. There is a healthy majority in favour of gay marriage in many European countries, including Britain.
Saying "MA is just one example" (cough) means nothing to anyone who can think. Nor would 100 examples. As I said, I only have to show one to prove P is wrong.
You accept Phantom's bull without looking for facts; so I’m afraid it’s you who’s the silly one, lass.
If they allowed votes in places like England and Ireland I have no doubt that they too would go the same way.
Those who deny this have a very incomplete understanding of human nature and society.
Correct.
This kind of anti-civilisational cause is one reason why many radical Leftists became lawyers instead of politicians - it's easier to legislate from the bench than to go to the trouble of getting elected. If anyone disagrees, argue it with Cherie Blair. She admitted exactly this.
It's also a reason why the radical Leftist lawyers and judges are so hot for human rights legislation - it's a permanent open door to radical Leftist judicial law.
There is a healthy majority in favour of gay marriage in many European countries, including Britain.
Prove it.
And by a credible method - not a poll done by the Gay Marriage Fan Club of Downtown Amsterdam.
There is no way a place like Ireland or even Britain is more radical than California or the Pacific Northwest on such matters.. Saying that the average person there would vote this in is just baby talk, from those who assume that everyone thinks just like them.
Some of you guys don't know my country - or your own - at all.
There are reasons for and against gay marraige but the idea that somehow a 'humane and civilised' society as Phantom put it, must reject such a concept is a ridiculous distortion of the meaning of those words. There is nothing inhumane or uncivilised about a recognition of same sex marraige.
Colm -
There is nothing inhumane or uncivilised about a recognition of same sex marraige.
Maybe, but there's something illogical about it because marriage is a Christian sacrament. The State can call what it dispenses whatever it likes, but it ain't marriage.
Pete
Re the Cherie Blair comment
Yes, yes, and yes. Such things as gay marriage or gay adoption were never meant to be discussed at all.
They were to be sneaked in by courts , as though they were always there, as though anyone who ever questioned the wisdom of the change was a wild murderous bigot in KKK robes.
There have been few less worthy causes in modern western history, and there has rarely been a worse strategy for getting the change enacted.
Pete
Re the Cherie Blair comment
Yes, yes, and yes. Such things as gay marriage or gay adoption were never meant to be discussed at all.
They were to be sneaked in by courts or commissions , as though they were always there, as though anyone who ever questioned the wisdom of the change was a wild ignorant bigot in his KKK robes.
There have been few less worthy causes in modern history, and there has rarely been a worse strategy for getting such a major change enacted.
Maybe, but there's something illogical about it because marriage is a Christian sacrament. The State can call what it dispenses whatever it likes, but it ain't marriage.
Then the state should not be involved in the marriage business at all.
Phantom
>>There is a healthy majority in favour of gay marriage in many European countries, including Britain.
Prove it.<<
There were two polls carried out in Britain - by Gallup and the Observer. Both showed a clear majority in favour of gay marriage.
I also referred above to a poll in the Netherlands that showed an 82 pc majority in favour.
Now what are your poll sources, apart from the poll of phantom prejudices?
>>There is no way a place like Ireland or even Britain is more liberal than California or the Pacific Northwest<<
There are actually many ways they are more liberal.
>>Saying that the average person there would vote this in is just baby talk, from those who assume that everyone thinks just like them.<<
Exactly. And that's precisely what you are doing here. The polls clearly show that you're supplying the baby talk.
But apart from all that, do you now at least admit that your statement that gay-marriage legislation was not enacted "anywhere on earth" except through stealth and dishonesty was total bullshit?
Or do you still think that the relevant laws in, say, Holland were introduced "in the metaphorical dead of night". If so, tell us what makes you think that.
>>marriage is a Christian sacrament. The State can call what it dispenses whatever it likes, but it ain't marriage.<<
Pete, do you agree that all those here who were married in a registry office aren't really married at all, and their children accordingly bastards?
Where were your parents married, by the way?
FewsOrange -
Then the state should not be involved in the marriage business at all.
It's not.
It's in the business of mandating certain contractual arrangements for reasons of an economic, social and culture war nature.
Certain arrangements it calls "marriage", but they aren't that at all. Unless you marry in the presence of God, you are merely entering a State-mandated contract.
Noel Cunningham -
Pete, do you agree that all those here who were married in a registry office aren't really married at all, and their children accordingly bastards?
Of course.
Where were your parents married, by the way?
In a church, of course.
They're respectable.
It was a fair election and the voters struck it down. That is how the process works.
But lets not pretend it was about marriage (check out Maine's high divorce rate, out of wedlock births and unmarried heterosexuals living together). it was about some people being uncomfortable with gay people.
mahons
Completely incorrect. They're uncomfortable with fraud.
---
The best poll is an election.
No bullshitting your way around that one. When you lose 30 elections in a row, you may want to listen.
So Pete, when all is said and done, the opposition boils down to one's religious beliefs/prejudices?
Phantom, I really can not explain your almost hysterical opposition to gay marriage. You do not come across as particularly religious ( neither does Pete for that matter.) In every debate on homosexuality and gay marriage, you Phantom act somewhat out of character with your hysteria on the matter. Very strange.
Mahons, excellent post.
Gay people can do whatever they like.
My point is - has always been, for those few who have cared to listen - that all societies have rules, and that I care to have my society organized this way.
The same ( cough ) open minded people who support this thing tend to say that they support a continued ban on state recognition of many other types of unions or marriages. - polygamy, polyandry, underage/adult unions ( which are just fine in some places )
I draw the line in a different place than you draw yours. But we all have lines and you are no more liberal than me on the larger issue.
Gay people can do whatever they like.
My point is - has always been, for those few who have cared to listen - that all societies have rules, and that I care to have my society organized this way.
The same ( cough ) open minded people who support this thing tend to say that they support a continued ban on state recognition of many other types of unions or marriages. - polygamy, polyandry, underage/adult unions ( which are just fine in some places )
I draw the line in a different place than you draw yours as to what the state should extend recognition to.. But we all have lines and you are no more liberal than me on the larger issue. You guys are blind on this.
And this precedes religion - here, religion probably absorbed some of the accumulated wisdom of the human race, not vice versa.
"Gay people can do whatever they like. "
Except enjoy equality.
" that all societies have rules, "
Like apartheid? Separate drinking fountains?
'and that I care to have my society organized this way.'
Why? And why should your preference matter?
"And this precedes religion "
What does? Homosexuality? or opposition to it?
'polygamy, polyandry, underage/adult unions ( which are just fine in some places ) '
All illegal. Homosexuality is not.
Yes, and you have not criticized these things being illegal.
That is my point.
"Yes, and you have not criticized these things being illegal. "
Why would I criticize the illegality of underage sex/sex abuse of a minor for example?
And what have your list of illegal activities to do with the rights of gays?
Are you proposing to bring " equality " with polygamy by making homosexuality illegal, as it once was?
That would be unfair. I oppose that move.
Are your anti polygomy etc sentiments the result of religious prejudice? How in the world does a guy with four wives hurt anyone? You need to expand your horizons. Be tolerant!
'Are you proposing to bring " equality " by making homosexuality illegal, as it once was?'
Nice try Phantom. ( Not even going to get into the fact that homosexuality is a biological behaviour unlike your list of distractions, because it seems you are in denial about science).
As I said, your reaction to this gay debate each and every time, is very very strange.
For me personally, I think it is a bit like the climate/GW debate- the discourse gets too hysterical- and logic gets lost in the process.
However, I do know that my personal preferences and moral belief system are mine alone, and not necessarily what should be law. I like it that way. Gay marriage should not be coming up for a vote, it just should be in existence, and as I said from the beginning, I'll never undersatnd what drives such hatred, fear and resentment as to go out and vote for anyone not to enjoy the rights that I do, as a human being.
Yes, logic does indeed get clouded in the AGW debate. There is no debate from me on that one.
And polygamy is very much a biologic behavior. Ask a fundamentalist Mormon if you doubt that. Behavior. Key word indeed.
There is no society on the face of the earth where the common people would vote this in. Fact.
There was a different result in WA, which I guess you missed. And who are "the common people"? You may also note that these races are very close, and that they tend to be skewed by age. The "victory" that you're so happy about is a temporary one.
Why can't I have the right to marry eight birds?
It's my human rights, innit?
Don't oppress me.
As they kids age, they gain a bit of wisdom.
This process is expected to continue
Pete:
Homosexuals are not asking to marry multiple partners.
They are simply asking for the right to marry, a right already enjoyed by everyone else.
Surely even you can see the difference?
Seamus dealt this this matter some time ago.
They've always had the right to marry.
Seamus, a right wing Sinn Feiner is an authority on this? or he agrees with you Phantom/
I'm curious, Phantom. Do you have a problem with the state acknowledging men and women as "married" who just live together with out a license or ceremony? After a period of time these couples have the right to their "spouse's" social security and other state benefits, they also have the right to pension and medical insurance plans provided by their "spouse's" employer.
Is it just the word marriage that causes you to feel this way?