[Venom351R]

So our democratic legislature and democratic governor took it upon themselves to make gay marriage legal here in the state early this year. That did not stand to well with many of the citizens in the state so it went to the ballots last night so the people could decide. Just so your not confused voting yes rejected it b/c "Yes you want to over turn the current law"

I Know its not a real news source but.

Maine Voters Reject Gay Marriage Law - FOXNews.com



What really pissed me off about all of the gay marriage supporter TV ads is that not once in any of their ad's did the mention the words, Gay, Homosexual, lesbian. They used the term "Marriage equality" Marriage equality for all Maine families and when they showed these Maine family's in their ad's it was a Man a Women and a son or daughter. Not once they did they show female/female, Male/male and a child. They could not even utter the words home sexual, gay or lesbian yet they wanted to make it legal in this sate? Im just glad that it was not even close. Hopefully that keeps the fruity people away from trying to do this again anytime soon. I know for sure it will be back eventually


This was also on the ballot, I didnt vote for it.

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

.

[jikelly]

Such bans on gay marriage are ridiculous. As far as I'm concerned they are unconstitutional and should be thrown out of the books.

It's just another form of discrimination. And the issue is used to distract people from issues that are really important.

[Reimann]

Originally Posted by jikelly

Such bans on gay marriage are ridiculous. As far as I'm concerned they are unconstitutional and should be thrown out of the books.

It's just another form of discrimination. And the issue is used to distract people from issues that are really important.

I actually agree with Kelly on this. Who cares if they get married? It doesn't hurt anyone if they do so why stop them?

[RookieOne]

I'd argue that this is a perfect example of how the Constitution was intended. More to the point, a perfect example of the 10th Amendment :

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

While I won't comment at all on the issue itself, I truly believe that such issues are, and should be, left to the individual States and voters of those states, per the Constitution.

[strtrcr50]

Hmm... Everytime it comes up for a vote, it is voted down. Are you guys saying we should ignore the votes of the public and institute what policy you feel is right/politically correct?

[jikelly]

Sure powers not defined by the constitution can be left to the states, but there is an amendment that deals specifically with discrimination and I believe it applies to the protection of an individual's right to marry a person of their choosing.

There were laws on the books in many states that prohibited my marriage to a person of a different race. Those ridiculous laws were finally struck down and it took an amendment to end that BS.

The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution, along with the Thirteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, was adopted after the Civil War as one of the Reconstruction Amendments on July 9, 1868.

The amendment provides a broad definition of citizenship, overruling the decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had excluded slaves, and their descendants, from possessing Constitutional rights; this was used in the mid-20th century to dismantle racial segregation in the United States, as in Brown v. Board of Education (1954). Its Due Process Clause has been used to apply most of the Bill of Rights to the states. This clause has also been used to recognize: (1) substantive due process rights, such as parental and marriage rights; and (2) procedural due process rights requiring that certain steps, such as a hearing, be followed before a person's "life, liberty, or property" can be taken away. The amendment's Equal Protection Clause requires states to provide equal protection under the law to all people within their jurisdictions. The amendment also includes a number of clauses dealing with the Confederacy and its officials.

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Reimann]

Originally Posted by strtrcr50

Hmm... Everytime it comes up for a vote, it is voted down. Are you guys saying we should ignore the votes of the public and institute what policy you feel is right/politically correct?

We're bashing the bigots that voted it down, not the system.

[strtrcr50]

Who are you to impose your morals on the majority of the public? It would set an interesting precident to ignore the will of the voting public to base policy on what the minority felt was the proper policitally correct choice.

[strtrcr50]

FWIW, I don't really have a dog in this fight. I could care less either way. The only strong opinion I have is that the church should not be forced to marry gays. Also, I have a problem with special interest groups trying to overturn the vote of the general public.
Using my good friend 6stang7's logic, since the constitution and the bill of rights do not show that there is a right to get married, there is NOT a right to get married. According to him, that is a FACT!

[strtrcr50]

If we DO decide that this vote was based on the bigotry of the voters and overturn it, what else can we make the same judgement call on and overturn in the name of political correctness?

[rbohm]

my only problem is that every time the issue of gay marriage come up in front of the voters, it is voted down, and the gay lobby then takes the law to court, which is their right, to get the election results overturned. they are even trying to do it with californias constitutional amendment. the problem with gay marriage is that other groups start pushing their agendas, groups like namlba for instance. it also raises the issue of what laws voted on by the public can be overturned by the courts next? this is a real slipperly slope we are on right now.

[strtrcr50]

Originally Posted by rbohm

my only problem is that every time the issue of gay marriage come up in front of the voters, it is voted down, and the gay lobby then takes the law to court, which is their right, to get the election results overturned. they are even trying to do it with californias constitutional amendment. the problem with gay marriage is that other groups start pushing their agendas, groups like namlba for instance. it also raises the issue of what laws voted on by the public can be overturned by the courts next? this is a real slipperly slope we are on right now.

Exactly. When we decide that the morals of the minority group should overturn popular vote, it opens a huge can of worms. Who's to decide the proper set of morals if we allow the popular vote to be discredited.

[dew22]

Originally Posted by Reimann

We're bashing the bigots that voted it down, not the system.

You don’t have to be a bigot to be against gay marriage. There’s a reason they don’t want to accept the same legal rights in a union called something other than marriage. This has more to do with a moral and religious struggle than rights.

The desire is to become more mainstream and excepted with a backdoor attempt to discredit a long help religious belief.

[jikelly]

Any law that intrudes on your right to marry a person of your choosing should be struck down as unconstitutional. The state has no right to tell you who you can or can't legally marry.

When I got married in California in 1959 there were almost 20 states where marriage was limited to two people of different sexes and the same race. Eight years later the Supreme Court unanimously declared state bans on interracial marriage unconstitutional.

Recently, Ted Olson and I brought a lawsuit asking the courts to now declare unconstitutional California's Proposition 8 limitation of marriage to people of the opposite sex. We acted together because of our mutual commitment to the importance of this cause, and to emphasize that this is not a Republican or Democratic issue, not a liberal or conservative issue, but an issue of enforcing our Constitution's guarantee of equal protection and due process to all citizens.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the right to marry the person you love is so fundamental that states cannot abridge it. In 1978 the Court (8 to 1, Zablocki v. Redhail) overturned as unconstitutional a Wisconsin law preventing child-support scofflaws from getting married. The Court emphasized, "decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals." In 1987 the Supreme Court unanimously struck down as unconstitutional a Missouri law preventing imprisoned felons from marrying.

Gay Marriage and the Constitution - WSJ.com

[strtrcr50]

You have no right to get married.. If I am wrong, please quote the constitution or bill or rights.

[dew22]

Originally Posted by jikelly

Any law that intrudes on your right to marry a person of your choosing should be struck down as unconstitutional. The state has no right to tell you who you can or can't legally marry.

I was unaware that changing the definition of a word was a constitutional right.........

[Reimann]

Originally Posted by strtrcr50

Who are you to impose your morals on the majority of the public? It would set an interesting precident to ignore the will of the voting public to base policy on what the minority felt was the proper policitally correct choice.

How is letting one group doing something "imposing morals" on anyone? Those that keep voting it down are the ones imposing morals.

Originally Posted by strtrcr50

FWIW, I don't really have a dog in this fight. I could care less either way. The only strong opinion I have is that the church should not be forced to marry gays. Also, I have a problem with special interest groups trying to overturn the vote of the general public.
Using my good friend 6stang7's logic, since the constitution and the bill of rights do not show that there is a right to get married, there is NOT a right to get married. According to him, that is a FACT!

I'm not really passionate about this either I just don't like the government restricting people unnecissarily. And since I am unemployed and don't have anything better to do (besides search for a new job) I might as well argue this I don't see this as a "Church" issue as you don't have to go through a church to get married. Generally, marriage just gives someone else rights to your assests and can make decisions for you.

Originally Posted by dew22

You don’t have to be a bigot to be against gay marriage. There’s a reason they don’t want to accept the same legal rights in a union called something other than marriage. This has more to do with a moral and religious struggle than rights.

The desire is to become more mainstream and excepted with a backdoor attempt to discredit a long help religious belief.

Once again, it doesn't have anything to do with the "church." Jews get married, Muslims get married, aethists get married, Scientologists get married. Those don't discredit "the church" do they? Why should gays getting married discredit it? And your jab at this being a "backdroor" attempt does show your bigotry.


I guess in short you guys are looking at this from a religious angle while I am looking at it from a legal one. You guys see it as a offense your beliefs that being homosexual is a sin while I look at it as legal oppression.

[jikelly]

Originally Posted by dew22

I was unaware that changing the definition of a word was a constitutional right.........

You mean the definition of the word marriage?

I've no desire to see churches forced to marry people who aren't an accepted part of the congregation. But, I've no desire to live in a country that upholds discriminatory practices as law.

I don't see these same sex marriage bans as being anything other than the legalized oppression of a minority group.

[dew22]

Originally Posted by Reimann

Once again, it doesn't have anything to do with the "church." Jews get married, Muslims get married, aethists get married, Scientologists get married. Those don't discredit "the church" do they?

Never said it did..................and don't think it does.

Originally Posted by Reimann

Why should gays getting married discredit it?

IMO Gays should be able to "join legally" if they choose and be granted every right that a married couple have.

Call it whatever you like, but don't call it something it's not.

Originally Posted by Reimann

And your jab at this being a "backdroor" attempt does show your bigotry.

Really?????

That's pretty lame Reimann!!!

[dew22]

Originally Posted by jikelly

You mean the definition of the word marriage?

I've no desire to see churches forced to marry people who aren't an accepted part of the congregation. But, I've no desire to live in a country that upholds discriminatory practices as law.

I don't see these same sex marriage bans as being anything other than the legalized oppression of a minority group.

Barack Obama "I do not support gay marriage. Marriage has religious and social connotations, and I consider marriage to be between a man and a woman."

Perhaps we should have a legal term for any legally joined couple, Homo. or Hetero.???

[RookieOne]

Originally Posted by strtrcr50

You have no right to get married.. If I am wrong, please quote the constitution or bill or rights.

The Constitution says NOTHING about marriage to my knowledge, thus the power to define the rights of marriage are reserved by the States and the people of the States.

So, my take, either amend the Constitution, or live by the rule of law of individual States, and MOVE if you don't agree with the ruling of a particular State.

Yet another example of good intentions paving the way to hell. The Federal Gov't is not alloted this power in the Constitution, and thus, the mere act of a Federal authority enforcing their judgement in this issue is Un-Constitutional in it's own right....

We need to go back to the days where the 10th Amendment was something that helped define our system, and do away with this ever growing, power hungry, Centralized Government....

[Strype]

Off with their heads!!!

[Venom351R]

Originally Posted by jikelly

Any law that intrudes on your right to marry a person of your choosing should be struck down as unconstitutional. The state has no right to tell you who you can or can't legally marry.

The state of Maine is not telling homosexuals they cannot marry. The citizens of the state said they cannot marry. The state passed the law w/ out voter approval early this year.

[strtrcr50]

Originally Posted by Reimann

I guess in short you guys are looking at this from a religious angle while I am looking at it from a legal one. You guys see it as a offense your beliefs that being homosexual is a sin while I look at it as legal oppression.

Not at all. I'm looking at this as the public has voted and spoken. You, however, know better and should be able to overturn their vote.
Again, I'll pass on special interest groups being allowed to overturn the majority vote.

[Reimann]

Originally Posted by dew22

IMO Gays should be able to "join legally" if they choose and be granted every right that a married couple have.

Call it whatever you like, but don't call it something it's not.

That's a little more like it. I personally think that the concept of "legal marriage" should be redefined. It shouldn't have anything to do with religion or sexuality but simple a legal contract legally binding two people together. That way one could make decisions for the other (if one was in a comma for example), share insurances, and provide all the other rights that "married" couples have. These unions should be easy to make and be broken. In fact, they should probably have an expiration date and the couples have to renew them occasionally. They way I see it, two heterosexuals can enter into one of these unions and choose to end it should one of them find spouse. All of this would be a legal thing and have absolutely nothing to do with religion.

Originally Posted by dew22

Really?????

That's pretty lame Reimann!!!

Yes, I thought that was pretty lame of you too.

Originally Posted by strtrcr50

Not at all. I'm looking at this as the public has voted and spoken. You, however, know better and should be able to overturn their vote.
Again, I'll pass on special interest groups being allowed to overturn the majority vote.

So you think it is ok for a group to be oppressed as long as the majority is ok with it? If the majority of Americans wanted to bring back slavery would you be ok with that? If the majority of Americans wanted to make stoning gays legal? "What's right isn't always popular. What's popular isn't always right."