EqualityMaine Launches 2012 Gay Marriage Ballot Initiative

I noticed the BDN got up to speed in all of 15 seconds on this issue. At least 2 articles, an editorial endorsement of the effort and David Farmer with a piece within 48 hours. Here is a link to the Farmer piece.

One of the comments is hilarious: "And here we see why the Democrats failed so miserably at managing our state budget and helping our economy grow. Every time this or another prominent progressive social issue comes along, they forget about everything else and circle around it like a pack of raccoons staring at a big shiny object."

Did that gay leader threaten to "hunt down every 'no' voter" again, like he did the last time they lost?

Don't like "gay marriage"? Great! Don't have one. Otherwise, what business of it is yours who other people marry?

Awaaaayyyy we go again, indeed.

Tim, in answer to your question: Despite claims to the contrary by groups promoting same-sex marriage, religious and private organizations both here in the US and in other countries HAVE faced legal sanction and/or been forced to change their operations for declining to offer venues for or provide services to same-sex couples. And in other states, notably Massachusetts, parents have had no choice but to allow public schools to teach their kids that same-sex marriage/gay relationships are peachy-keen A-OK. Now, I personally share that point of view, but I do believe that parents whose views are different should at minimum be allowed to opt their kids out of any such instruction. That's not acceptable to same-sex marriage proponents.

In fact, the whole concept of states legalizing same-sex marriage is silly, because many of the "rights" that are "denied" to same-sex couples are based in federal, not state, law. States can certainly grant certain rights to same-sex couples, and have done so, but that won't change the "rights" denied by federal law. Federal law would have to change.

When you come right down to it, this is a fight over a word. Proponents want nothing less than the word "marriage" to describe their relationships, even if the actual legal status conferred is no different than that of a civil union. There is a (mistaken, I believe) assumption that the terminology will create a greater impression of legitimacy than other terms, such as civil unions. I believe this point of view is mistaken for the simple reason that those who feel that same-sex relationships are not the same thing as what has been culturally understood as marriage won't be swayed by the change in definition.

Eagleisland's point on the word "marriage" raises the valid question of why government is even in the business of "marriage". That should be a private matter for various religious denominations to determine (some will perform same-sex weddings, some won't) and the state should merely have a civil union registry to guarantee equal rights under taxation and property laws. The same civil protections would apply to heterosexual or homosexual unions without any conflict to religious denominations which would not perform weddings.

Did anyone notice that Prince William and Kate actually participated in a civic registration to have a legally-sanctioned coupling and then entered the pomp and circumstance for a religious "marriage" ceremony at Westminster Cathedral? That is the accepted custom in many European countries and no religious leaders object. I was in a small Tuscano village where the distances were so close that the couple exited the City Hall after registering in full regalia and marched side-by-side to the church with their guests along the parade route and then following them inside. (Of course, Italians are all secretly anti-clerical and might have told the village priest that if he didn't like it, he could stuff it.)

I have always cringed when I have attended weddings to hear clergy utter the phrase "..by the power invested in me by the state of...." Government should have no power to dictate anything to a religion. Those who fear a gay marriage law which doesn't allow religious opt out miss sight of the fact that due to a long-held theocratic tradition carried-over to American usage, religions long ago ceded power to the government when they accepted "..the power invested in me by the state of..."

Eagle - are you certain that Massachusetts does not allow an opt-out for sex-ed classes in their public schools? I find that unusual.

I went to Lewiston to hear the announcement. Great speakers...many good things said. There is no curriculum set up to teach anything about marriage (gay or str8) in Maine schools at all. If marriage for same sex couples gets the vote, there still will not be anything in the school curriculum that teaches marriage.

What we have now are schools that teach respect and tolerance towards various forms of families (including same sex parent families)...What is wrong with that?

charlotte: Do not use potentially offensive abbreviations such as "str8". The same goes for any abbreviations that may be offensive to those on either side of this issue. My thread...my rules.

HuffPost Los Angeles: Gay History Bill: California Senate Votes For Mandatory Gay History In Schools

I personally don't think an individuals sexuality is anybody else, or the government's business, but for those who still make the claim that there will not be anything added or proposed to be added to the school curriculum, it might be helpful to look at what is happening elsewhere before making such a bold claim. To proponents of the gay marriage effort in Maine, this push in California makes the school curriculum argument much harder to have with a straight face.

"...circle around it like a pack of raccoons staring at a big shiny object"

Don't like "gay marriage"? Great! Don't have one. Otherwise, what business of it is yours who other people marry? ~Tim Wright

Game...Set...Match. Thank you so much Tim, for validating his point.

I hear there is something to take for your short term memory loss, this has been discussed ad nauseam before.

For the record, I really don't care one way or the other if homosexuals want to get married. Color me ambivalent.

What I object to is activists coming in from out of state and pushing their views in my face with their typical heavy-handed tactics. And I object to the liberal/progressive agenda which has usurped the gay rights movement. I think a lot of people feel that way as well. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if that's not the real reason gay marriage has been turned back at the polls.

Mucho dinero will once again be wasted on this new referendum for an old subject. When does "No" really mean "No!"

And for what it is worth, God makes it clear, via the Bible, that He does not approve of such relationships or the "private" acts performed within such relatioships. It is not in our best interests to flaunt His Word. Going against His desire for us (mankind) has never, ever proven successful for mankind over the long run of human history. Ever.

Flat out prediction - this will pass this time unless a new strategy is deployed. And it is a Presidential electorate - no battle of the bases this time.

"My thread...my rules… What I object to is activists coming in from out of state and pushing their views in my face with their typical heavy-handed tactics" At the risk of upsetting your fine heterosexual morality - are we allowed to discuss this?
Dioceses major contributors to repeal same-sex marriage
"Gathering money from 50 U.S. dioceses, the Portland, Maine, diocese contributed more than $550,000 to the campaign to rejected Maine's law extending civil marriage to gay and lesbian couples, according to financial records filed with the state agency that tracks political contributions." Pardon me all to heck, but since you bring up the subject of out-of-state activists, can the Catholic Church's actions in this be considered ACTIVIST?? Hmmm, well YES!...

Wishing you all well on defeating the perversion "marriage" proposal again. I see that seminar posters have returned.....

Jeepn--and here it comes again! Hope you're ready!

Dale--I'm happy you have strong religious convictions, but there is such a thing as separation of church and state. Have you heard?

Lucky--zing!

wvr--and the bigots have apparently returned too!

http://www.wmtw.com/r-video/28406889/detail.html

A few dozen turn out for the big annoucement. No wonder they need paid signature workers....

^^^^

OMG! You mean there wasn't a mass orgy of mincing fairies and dykes on bikes loudly cheering the impending doom of straight goodness after all? Maybe the "perverts" aren't so dangerous to the rest of us after all!

This is going to be a different ball game. In order for this to work, they pro gay marriage people will have to get enough signatures to get the issue on the ballot. There is no friendly legislature passing the law and forcing conservatives to repeal the law via people's veto. This will be very interesting indeed.

No doubt "paid signature workers" said with contempt only if they are working against your personal moral indignation. If you agree with the petition for which they are being paid, they are hardworking citizens rightly paid because they are laboring for the common good.

Dale--I'm happy you have strong religious convictions, but there is such a thing as separation of church and state. Have you heard?

Tell that to Mayor Larry, who found his way in front of the camera. Larry never misses a photo op.

Dale--I'm happy you have strong religious convictions, but there is such a thing as separation of church and state. Have you heard?
----------------

Tim- Does your separation of church and state only apply to those churches who are against gay marriage. On the news report this evening on wmtw, an OOB Pastor was speaking for gay marriage, in fact he filed the petitions paperwork. So separation of church and state!

Separation of church and state doesn't block a Churches right to be involved in Public Policy issues such as marriage or abortion. The first amendment protects a churches right to speak out on public policy, and an individual religious belief is protected by the first amendment.

We need to fight for the American Family, I will not sign this because all it is an attack on traditional values, and goes against everything the bible and God stands for.

lucky: No, I'm not especially happy about the Catholic church pushing their views, either. But do try not to be so juvenile. It doesn't aid your cause and it frankly detracts from your argument and puts you in Tim's camp.

Lucky ^5. What about the out of state organization...the NOM (National Organization for Marriage)? They gave loads of money....

WV...I was there today. There was a decent number of folks that took the time off from work to attend.

Tim...LOL!

I will be collecting signatures...I will do it for free! If anyone on this forum wants to sign up, just let me know!

If they follow this playtbook used by Andrew Cuomo, they could win this time in Maine:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/nyregion/the-road-to-gay-marriage-in-n...

R - Juvenile? Because I don't agree with you? Okay, sure. Please try to resist putting people in "camps", we are all individuals with our own opinions.

lucky: Yes, juvenile. Not because we disagree, because as I said, I am really ambivalent about this issue. But because of the attitude you chose to take in your attempt to get your message across. It is precisely that tone that I am against. Learn from your mistakes. It may help you.

Tim Wright said: Maybe the "perverts" aren't so dangerous to the rest of us after all!

You've obviously never heard of the Pink Pistols.

Mike--not 'til you mentioned them. Perhaps you could introduce them to the 2nd Amendment section of AMG?

I have learned many times over that you are not going to win on this issue by making it a religious issue. You can use it as a family issue, a moral issue, traditional marriage issue, but in liberal Northern New England religion does not work the way it would in the south.

I must say that I don't care what the issue is, it could be this one or casinos, or TABOR, or anything else for that matter, if I knew that the people gathering signatures or even any of the people gathering signatures were being paid...I would not sign the petition. If they really wanted it on the ballot that bad, they would be doing this on their own time and out of their own pocket not that of a lobbiest group of some sort.

There is one more thing. We need to remember to treat everybody with respect regardless of their views on this issue. I can see a couple of people are starting to go off the deep end already and I just think there needs to be civility and respect between all of us and allow us to share our opinions. I realize we are not all going to agree on this subject, but I think this is something that should be adhered to as well. I would hope that Reaganite would think about adding that to his statement of "my thead, my rules".

Now somebody want to pass the popcorn. I think this is going to be a long thread.